STACK 
ANNEX 


5 

081 

125 


WttMMWM«*tt«0MHWm)MttttM^ 

»«j^KX)^rt*m«W<WH*8^<t«m«ia^  : 

^ihiifflffttmt'^ 


MMV,  PF  CALIF.  L1BBARY.  LOS  ANOKI-E9 


Series  of  3£nglisf)  Classics 


WEBSTER 


REPLY  TO  HAYNE 


EDITED   BY 


CORNELIUS  BEACH  BRADLEY 

PROFESSOR  OF  RHETORIC  IN  THE  UNIVERSITY 
OF  CALIFORNIA 


ALLYN    AND    BACON 

Boston  ant)  Chicago 


COPYRIGHT,  1894, 
BY  CORNELIUS  B.  BRADLEY. 


TYPOGBAPHY  BY  C.  J.  PETERS  fc  SON,  BOSTON. 


PBESSWOBK  BY  BERWICK  &  SMITH. 


DANIEL  WEBSTER. 


REPLY  TO  HAYNE;  IN  THE  UNITED  STATES  SENATE, 

JANUARY    26,  1830. 


MR.  PRESIDENT,  —  When  the  mariner  has  been  tossed 
for  many  days  in  thick  weather,  and  on  an  unknown  sea, 
he  naturally  avails  himself  of  the  first  pause  in  the  storm, 
the  earliest  glance  of  the  sun,  to  take  his  latitude,  and 
ascertain  how  far  the  elements  have  driven  him  from  his  5 
true  course.  Let  us  imitate  this  prudence,  and  before 
we  float  farther  on  the  waves  of  this  debate,  refer  to  the 
point  from  which  we  departed,  that  we  may  at  least 
be  able  to  conjecture  where  we  now  are.  I  ask  for  the 
reading  of  the  resolution  before  the  Senate.  10 

The  Secretary  read  the  resolution,  as  follows :  — 

"  Resolved,  That  the  Committee  on  Public  Lands  be  instructed 
to  inquire  and  report  the  quantity  of  public  lands  remaining 
unsold  within  each  State  and  Territory,  and  whether  it  be 
expedient  to  limit  for  a  certain  period  the  sales  of  the  pub-  15 
lie  lands  to  such  lands  only  as  have  heretofore  been  offered 
for  sale,  and  are  now  subject  to  entry  at  the  minimum  price. 
And,  also,  whether  the  office  of  Surveyor-General,  and  some 
of  the  land  offices,  may  not  be  abolished  without  detriment 
to  the  public  interest ;  or  whether  it  be  expedient  to  adopt  20 
measures  to  hasten  the  sales  and  extend  more  rapidly  the 
surveys  of  the  public  lands." 

We  have  thus  heard,  Sir,  what  the  resolution  is  which 
is  actually  before  us  for  consideration ;  and  it  will  readily 
occur  to  every  one  that  it  is  almost  the  only  subject  25 

185 


186  Webster. 

about  which  something  has  not  been  said  in  the  speech, 
running  through  two  days,  by  which  the  Senate  has 
been  entertained  by  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina. 
Every  topic  in  the  wide  range  of  our  public  affairs, 
5  whether  past  or  present  —  everything,  general  or  local, 
whether  belonging  to  national  politics  or  party  politics 
—  seems  to  have  attracted  more  or  less  of  the  honorable 
member's  attention,  save  only  the  resolution  before  the 
Senate.  He  has  spoken  of  everything  but  the  public 

10  lands ;  they  have  escaped  his  notice.  To  that  subject, 
in  all  his  excursions,  he  has  not  paid  even  the  cold 
respect  of  a  passing  glance. 

When  this  debate,  Sir,  was  to  be  resumed  on  Thurs- 
day morning,  it  so  happened  that  it  would  have  been 

15  convenient  for  me  to  be  elsewhere.  The  honorable  mem- 
ber, however,  did  not  incline  to  put  off  the  discussion 
to  another  day.  He  had  a  shot,  he  said,  to  return,  and 
he  wished  to  discharge  it.  That  shot,  Sir,  which  he  thus 
kindly  informed  us  was  coming,  that  we  might  stand  out 

20  of  the  way,  or  prepare  ourselves  to  fall  by  it  and  die 
with  decency,  has  now  been  received.  Under  all  advan- 
tages, and  with  expectation  awakened  by  the  tone  which 
preceded  it,  it  has  been  discharged,  and  has  spent  its 
force.  It  may  become  me  to  say  no  more  of  its  effect, 

25  than  that,  if  nobody  is  found,  after  all,  either  killed  or 
wounded,  it  is  not  the  first  time  in  the  history  of  human 
affairs  that  the  vigor  and  success  of  the  war  have  not 
quite  come  up  to  the  lofty  and  sounding  phrase  of  the 
manifesto. 

so  The  gentleman,  Sir,  in  declining  to  postpone  the  de- 
bate, told  the  Senate,  with  the  emphasis  of  his  hand 
upon  his  heart,  that  there  was  something  rankling  here, 
which  he  wished  to  relieve. 

[Mr.  Hayne  rose,  and  disclaimed  having  used  the  word  rank- 
35  ling.] 


Reply  to  Rayne.  187 

It  -would  not,  Mr.  President,  be  safe  for  the  honorable 
member  to  appeal  to  those  around  him  upon  the  ques- 
tion whether  he  did,  in  fact,  make  use  of  that  word. 
But  he  may  have  been  unconscious  of  it.  At  any  rate, 
it  is  enough  that  he  disclaims  it.  But  still,  with  or  with-  5 
out  the  use  of  that  particular  word,  he  had  yet  something 
here,  he  said,  of  which  he  wished  to  rid  himself  by  an 
immediate  reply.  In  this  respect,  Sir,  I  have  a  great 
advantage  over  the  honorable  gentleman.  There  is  noth- 
ing here,  Sir,  which  gives  me  the  slightest  uneasiness ;  10 
neither  fear,  nor  anger,  nor  that  which  is  sometimes  more 
troublesome  than  either,  the  consciousness  of  having  been 
in  the  wrong.  There  is  nothing  either  originating  here, 
or  now  received  here  by  the  gentleman's  shot.  Nothing 
originating  here,  for  I  had  not  the  slightest  feeling  of  15 
unkindness  towards  the  honorable  member.  Some  pas- 
sages, it  is  true,  had  occurred  since  our  acquaintance  in 
this  body  which  I  could  have  wished  might  have  been 
otherwise ;  but  I  had  used  philosophy,  and  forgotten  them. 
I  paid  the  honorable  member  the  attention  of  listening  20 
with  respect  to  his  first  speech ;  and  when  he  sat  down, 
though  surprised,  and  I  must  even  say  astonished,  at 
some  of  his  opinions,  nothing  was  farther  from  my  in- 
tention than  to  commence  any  personal  warfare.  Through 
the  whole  of  the  few  remarks  I  made  in  answer,  I  avoided,  25 
studiously  and  carefully,  everything  which  I  thought 
possible  to  be  construed  into  disrespect.  And,  Sir,  while 
there  is  thus  nothing  originating  here  which  I  have 
wished  at  any  time,  or  now  wish,  to  discharge,  I  must 
repeat,  also,  that  nothing  has  been  received  here  which  30 
rankles,  or  in  any  way  gives  me  annoyance.  I  will  not 
accuse  the  honorable  member  of  violating  the  rules  of 
civilized  war  —  I  will  not  say  that  he  poisoned  his  arrows. 
But  whether  his  shafts  were,  or  were  not,  dipped  in  that 
which  would  have  caused  rankling,  if  they  had  reached  35 


188  Webster. 

their  destination,  there  was  not,  as  it  happened,  quite 
strength  enough  in  the  bow  to  bring  them  to  their  mark. 
If  he  wishes  now  to  gather  up  those  shafts,  he  must  look 
for  them  elsewhere;  they  will  not  be  found  fixed  and 
5  quivering  in  the  object  at  which  they  were  aimed. 

The  honorable  member  complained  that  I  had  slept 
on  his  speech.  I  must  have  slept  on  it,  or  not  slept  at 
all.  The  moment  the  honorable  member  sat  down,  his 
friend  from  Missouri  rose,  and,  with  much  honeyed  com- 

10  mendation  of  the  speech,  suggested  that  the  impressions 
which  it  had  produced  were  too  charming  and  delightful 
to  be  disturbed  by  other  sentiments  or  other  sounds,  and 
proposed  that  the  Senate  should  adjourn.  Would  it  have 
been  quite  amiable  in  me,  Sir,  to  interrupt  this  excellent 

15  good  feeling  ?  Must  I  not  have  been  absolutely  mali- 
cious, if  I  could  have  thrust  myself  forward  to  destroy 
sensations  thus  pleasing  ?  Was  it  not  much  better  and 
kinder,  both  to  sleep  upon  them  myself,  and  to  allow 
others  also  the  pleasure  of  sleeping  upon  them?  But 

20  if  it  be  meant,  by  sleeping  upon  his  speech,  that  I  took 
time  to  prepare  a  reply  to  it,  it  is  quite  a  mistake.  Owing 
to  other  engagements  I  could  not  employ  even  the  inter- 
val between  the  adjournment  of  the  Senate  and  its  meet- 
ing the  next  morning  in  attention  to  the  subject  of  this 

25  debate.  Nevertheless,  Sir,  the  mere  matter  of  fact  is 
undoubtedly  true.  I  did  sleep  on  the  gentleman's  speech, 
and  slept  soundly.  And  I  slept  equally  well  on  his  speech 
of  yesterday,  to  which  I  am  now  replying.  It  is  quite 
possible  that  in  this  respect,  also,  I  possess  some  advan- 

30  tage  over  the  honorable  member,  attributable,  doubtless, 
to  a  cooler  temperament  on  my  part ;  for,  in  truth,  I  slept 
upon  his  speeches  remarkably  well. 

But  the  gentleman  inquires  why  he  was  made  the  ob- 
ject of  such  a  reply  ?  Why  was  he  singled  out  ?  If  an 

35  attack  has  been  made  on  the  East,  he,  he  assures  us,  did 


Reply  to  Hayne.  189 

.not  begin  it;  it  was  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Mis- 
souri.    Sir,  I  answered  the  gentleman's  speech  because  I 
happened  to  hear  it ;  and  because,  also,  I  chose  to  give 
an  answer  to  that  speech,  which,  if  unanswered,  I  thought 
most  likely  to  produce  injurious  impressions.     I  did  not  5 
stop  to  inquire  who  was  the  original  drawer  of  the  bill. 
I  found  a  responsible  indorser  before  me,  and  it  was  my 
purpose  to  hold  him  liable,  and  to  bring  him  to  his  just 
responsibility  without  delay.     But,  Sir,  this  interrogatory 
of  the  honorable  member  was  only  introductory  to  another.  10 
He  proceeded  to  ask  me  whether  I  had  turned  upon  him, 
in  this  debate,  from  the  consciousness  that  I  should  find 
an  overmatch,  if  I  ventured  on  a  contest  with  his  friend  f 
from  Missouri.     If,  Sir,  the  honorable  member,  modestiaz 
gratia,  had  chosen  thus  to  defer  to  his  friend,  and  to  pay  15 
him  a  compliment,  without  intentional  disparagement  to 
others,  it  would  have  been  quite  according  to  the  friendly 
courtesies  of  debate,  and  not  at  all  ungrateful  to  my  own 
feelings.     I  am  not  one  of  those,  Sir,  who  esteem  any 
tribute  of  regard,  whether  light  and  occasional,  or  more  20 
serious  and  deliberate,  which  may  be  bestowed  on  others, 
as  so  much  unjustly  withholden  from  themselves.     But 
the  tone  and  manner  of  the  gentleman's  question  forbid 
me  thus  to  interpret  it.     I  am  not  at  liberty  to  consider 
it  as  nothing  more  than  a  civility  to  his  friend.     It  had  25 
an  air  of  taunt  and  disparagement,  something  of  the  lofti- 
ness of  asserted  superiority,  which  does  not  allow  me  to 
pass  it  over  without  notice.     It  was  put  as  a  question 
for  me  to  answer,  and  so  put  as  if  it  were  difficult  for 
me  to  answer,  whether  I  deemed  the  member  from  Mis-  30 
souri  an  overmatch  for  myself  in  debate  here.     It  seems 
to  me,  Sir,  that  this  is  extraordinary  language,  and  an 
extraordinary  tone,  for  the  discussions  of  this  body. 

Matches  and  overmatches  !     Those  terms  are  more  ap- 
plicable elsewhere  than  here,  and  fitter  for  other  assem-  35 


190  Webster. 

blies  than  this.  Sir,  the  gentleman  seems  to  forget 
where  and  what  we  are.  This  is  a  Senate  —  a  Senate 
of  equals,  of  men  of  individual  honor  and  personal  char- 
acter, and  of  absolute  independence.  We  know  no  mas- 
5  ters,  we  acknowledge  no  dictators.  This  is  a  hall  for 
mutual  consultation  and  discussion  ;  not  an  arena  for  the 
exhibition  of  champions.  I  offer  myself,  Sir,  as  a  match 
for  no  man ;  I  throw  the  challenge  of  debate  at  no  man's 
feet.  But  then,  Sir,  since  the  honorable  member  has  put 

10  the  question  in  a  manner  that  calls  for  an  answer,  I  will 
give  him  an  answer ;  and  I  tell  him  that,  holding  my- 
self to  be  the  humblest  of  the  members  here,  I  yet  know 
nothing  in  the  arm  of  his  friend  from  Missouri,  either 
alone,  or  when  aided  by  the  arm  of  his  friend  from  South 

15  Carolina,  that  need  deter  even  me  from  espousing  what- 
ever opinions  I  may  choose  to  espouse,  from  debating 
whenever  I  may  choose  to  debate,  or  from  speaking  what- 
ever I  may  see  fit  to  say,  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate.  Sir, 
when  uttered  as  matter  of  commendation  or  compliment, 

20  I  should  dissent  from  nothing  which  the  honorable  mem- 
ber might  say  of  his  friend.  Still  less  do  I  put  forth 
any  pretensions  of  my  own.  But  when  put  to  me  as 
matter  of  taunt,  I  throw  it  back,  and  say  to  the  gentle- 
man that  he  could  possibly  say  nothing  less  likely  than 

25  such  a  comparison  to  wound  my  pride  of  personal  char- 
acter. The  anger  of  its  tone  rescued  the  remark  from 
intentional  irony,  which  otherwise,  probably,  would  have 
been  its  general  acceptation.  But,  Sir,  if  it  be  imagined 
that  by  this  mutual  quotation  and  commendation  ;  if  it 

30  be  supposed  that,  by  casting  the  characters  of  the  drama, 
assigning  to  each  his  part,  to  one  the  attack,  to  another 
the  cry  of  onset ;  or  if  it  be  thought  that,  by  a  loud  and 
empty  vaunt  of  anticipated  victory,  any  laurels  are  to  be 
won  here ;  if  it  be  imagined,  especially,  that  any  or  all 

35  these  things  will  shake  any  purpose  of  mine,  I  can  tell 


Reply  to  Hayne.  191 

the  honorable  member,  once  for  all,  that  he  is  greatly 
mistaken,  and  that  he  is  dealing  with  one  of  whose  tem- 
per and  character  he  has  yet  much  to  learn.  Sir,  I  shall 
not  allow  myself  on  this  occasion,  I  hope  on  no  occasion, 
to  be  betrayed  into  any  loss  of  temper ;  but  if  provoked,  5 
as  I  trust  I  never  shall  be,  into  crimination  and  recrimi- 
nation, the  honorable  member  may  perhaps  find  that  in 
that  contest  there  will  be  blows  to  take  as  well  as  blows 
to  give ;  that  others  can  state  comparisons  as  significant, 
at  least,  as  his  own,  and  that  his  impunity  may  possibly  10 
demand  of  him  whatever  powers  of  taunt  and  sarcasm 
he  may  possess.  I  commend  him  to  a  prudent  husbandry 
of  his  resources.  .  .  . 

In  the  course  of  my  observations  the  other  day,  Mr. 
President,  I  spoke  of  the  Ordinance  of  1787,  which  pro- 15 
hibits  slavery,  in  all  future  times,  north-west  of  the  Ohio, 
as  a  measure  of  great  wisdom  and  foresight,  and  one 
which  had  been  attended  with  highly  beneficial  and  per- 
manent consequences.  I  supposed  that,  on  this  point, 
no  two  gentlemen  in  the  Senate  could  entertain  different  20 
opinions.  But  the  simple  expression  of  this  sentiment 
has  led  the  gentleman,  not  only  into  a  labored  defence 
of  slavery  in  the  abstract,  and  on  principle,  but  also  into 
a  warm  accusation  against  me,  as  having  attacked  the 
system  of  domestic  slavery  now  existing  in  the  Southern  25 
States.  For  all  this  there  was  not  the  slightest  founda- 
tion in  anything  said  or  intimated  by  me.  I  did  not 
utter  a  single  word  which  any  ingenuity  could  torture 
into  an  attack  on  the  slavery  of  the  South.  I  said  only 
that  it  was  highly  wise  and  useful,  in  legislating  for  the  30 
North-western  country,  while  it  was  yet  a  wilderness,  to 
prohibit  the  introduction  of  slaves ;  and  I  added  that  I 
presumed  there  was  no  reflecting  and  intelligent  person 
in  the  neighboring  state  of  Kentucky,  who  would  doubt 
that,  if  the  same  prohibition  had  been  extended  at  the  35 


192  Webster. 

same  early  period  over  that  Commonwealth,  her  strength 
and  population  would,  at  this  day,  have  been  far  greater 
than  they  are.  If  these  opinions  be  thought  doubtful, 
they  are,  nevertheless,  I  trust,  neither  extraordinary  nor 
5  disrespectful.  They  attack  nobody,  and  menace  nobody. 
And  yet,  Sir,  the  gentleman's  optics  have  discovered, 
even  in  the  mere  expression  of  this  sentiment,  what  he 
calls  the  very  spirit  of  the  Missouri  question !  He  rep- 
resents me  as  making  an  onset  on  the  whole  Southland 
10  manifesting  a  spirit  which  would  interfere  with,  and  dis- 
turb, their  domestic  condition ! 

Sir,  this  injustice  no  otherwise  surprises  me,  than  as 
it  is  Committed  here,  and  committed  without  the  slight- 
pretence  of  ground  for  it.     I  say  it  only  surprises  me 
15  as  being  done  here;  for  I  know  full  well  that  it  is,  and 
has  been,  the  settled  policy  of  some  persons  in  the  South 
for  years  to  represent  the  people  of  the  North  as  dis- 
posed to  interfere  with  them  in  their  own  exclusive  and 
peculiar  concerns.     This  is  a  delicate  and  sensitive  point 
20  in  Southern  feeling  ;  and  of  late  years  it  has  always  been 
touched,  and  generally  with  effect,  whenever  the  object 
has  been  to  unite  the  whole  South  against  Northern  men 
or  Northern  measures.     This  feeling,  always  carefully 
kept  alive,  and  maintained  at  too  intense  a  heat  to  admit 
25  discrimination  or  reflection,  is  a  lever  of  great  power  in 
our  political  machine.     It  moves  vast  bodies,  and  gives 
to  them  one  and  the  same  direction.     But  it  is  without 
adequate  cause,  and  the  suspicion  which  exists  is  wholly 
groundless.     There  is.  not,  and  never  has  been,  a  dispo- 
se sition  in  the  North  to  interfere  with  these  interests  of 
the  South.     Such  interference  has  never  been  supposed 
to  be  within  the  power  of  government ;  nor  has  it  been 
in  any  way  attempted.     The  slavery  of  the  South  has 
always  been  regarded  as  a  matter  of  domestic  policy, 
35  left  with  the  States  themselves,  and  with  which  the  fed- 


Reply  to  Hayne.  193 

eral  government  had  nothing  to  do.  Certainly,  Sir,  I  am, 
and  ever  have  been,  of  that  opinion.  The  gentleman, 
indeed,  argues  that  slavery  in  the  abstract  is  no  evil. 
Most  assuredly,  I  need  not  say,  I  differ  with  him  alto- 
gether and  most  widely,  on  that  point.  I  regard  domestic  5 
slavery  as  one  of  the  greatest  evils,  both  moral  and  polit- 
ical. But  whether  it  be  a  malady,  and  whether  it  be 
curable,  and,  if  so,  by  what  means ;  or,  on  the  other  hand, 
whether  it  be  the  vulnus  immedicabile  of  the  social  sys- 
tem —  I  leave  it  to  those  whose  right  and  duty  it  is  to  10 
inquire  and  to  decide.  And  this,  I  believe,  Sir,  is,  and 
uniformly  has  been,  the  sentiment  of  the  North.  .  .  . 

[In  support  of  this  last  statement  Mr.  Webster  appeals  to  the 
history  of  attempts  made  to  enlist  the  first  Congress  in  the  aboli- 
tion of  slavery.  These  attempts  resulted  in  the  famous  resolutions  15 
reported  by  a  committee  composed  almost  exclusively  of  North- 
ern men,  and  adopted  by  a  House  two-thirds  of  whose  members 
were  from  the  North,  declaring  that  Congress  has  "  no  authority 
to  interfere  in  the  emancipation  of  slaves,  or  in  the  treatment  of 
them  in  any  of  the  States."]  20 

The  fears  of  the  South,  whatever  fears  they  might 
have  entertained,  were  allayed  and  quieted  by  this  early 
decision ;  and  so  remained  till  they  were  excited  afresh, 
without  cause,  but  for  collateral  and  indirect  purposes. 
When  it  became  necessary,  or  was  thought  so  by  some  25 
political  persons,  to  find  an  unvarying  ground  for  the 
exclusion  of  Northern  men  from  confidence  and  from 
lead  in  the  affairs  of  the  republic,  then,  and  not  till  then, 
the  cry  was  raised,  and  the  feeling  industriously  excited, 
that  the  influence  of  Northern  men  in  thex  public  councils  30 
would  endanger  the  relation  of  master  andl  slave.  For 
myself,  I  claim  no  other  merit  than  that  this  gross  and 
enormous  injustice  towards  the  whole  North  has  not 
wrought  upon  me  to  change  my  opinions  or  my  political 


194  Webster. 

conduct.  I  hope  I  am  above  violating  my  principles, 
even  under  the  smart  of  injury  and  false  imputations. 
Unjust  suspicions  and  undeserved  reproach,  whatever 
pain  I  may  experience  from  them,  will  not  induce  me,  I 
5  trust,  to  overstep  the  limits  of  constitutional  duty,  or  to 
encroach  on  the  rights  of  others.  The  domestic  slavery 
of  the  Southern  States  I  leave  where  I  find  it,  —  in  the 
hands  of  their  own  governments.  It  is  their  affair,  not 
mine.  Nor  do  I  complain  of  the  peculiar  effect  which 

10  the  magnitude  of  that  population  has  had  in  the  distri- 
bution of  power  under  this  federal  government.  We 
,know,  Sir,  that  the  representation  of  the  States  in  the 
other  House  is  not  equal.  We  know  that  great  advan- 
tage in  that  respect  is  enjoyed  by  the  slave-holding 

15  States ;  and  we  know,  too,  that  the  intended  equivalent 
for  that  advantage,  that  is  to  say,  the  imposition  of  direct 
taxes  in  the  same  ratio,  has  become  merely  nominal,  the 
habit  of  the  government  being  almost  invariably  to  col- 
lect its  revenue  from  other  sources  and  in  other  modes. 

20  Nevertheless,  I  do  not  complain ;  nor  would  I  counte- 
nance any  movement  to  alter  this  arrangement  of  repre- 
sentation. It  is  the  original  bargain,  the  compact;  let  it 
stand;  let  the  advantage  of  it  be  fully  enjoyed.  The 
Union  itself  is  too  full  of  benefit  to  be  hazarded  in 

25  propositions  for  changing  its  original  basis.  I  go  for 
the  Constitution  as  it  is,  and  for  the  Union  as  it  is. 
But  I  am  resolved  not  to  submit  in  silence  to  accusa- 
tions either  against  myself  individually  or  against  the 
North,  wholly  unfounded  and  unjust ;  accusations  which 

30  impute  to  us  a  disposition  to  evade  the  constitutional 
compact,  and  to  extend  the  power  of  the  government 
over  the  internal  laws  and  domestic  condition  of  the 
States.  All  such  accusations,  wherever  and  whenever 
made,  all  insinuations  of  the  existence  of  any  such  pur- 

35  poses,  I  know  and  feel  to  be  groundless  and  injurious. 


Reply  to  Hayne.  195 

And  we  must  confide  in  Southern  gentlemen  themselves; 
we  must  trust  to  those  whose  integrity  of  heart  and  mag- 
nanimity of  feeling  will  lead  them  to  a  desire  to  maintain 
and  disseminate  truth,  and  who  possess  the  means  of  its 
diffusion  with  the  Southern  public ;  we  must  leave  it  to  5 
them  to  disabuse  that  public  of  its  prejudices.  But  in 
the  mean  time,  for  my  own  part,  I  shall  continue  to  act 
justly,  whether  those  towards  whom  justice  is  exercised 
receive  it  with  candor  or  with  contumely.  .  . 

[Mr.  Webster  next  refutes  the  charge  of  inconsistency  between 
his  present  position  regarding  the  public  lands  and  that  taken 
by  him  in  1825.] 

We  approach,  at  length,  Sir,  to  a  more  important  part 
of  the  honorable  gentleman's  observations.  Since  it 
does  not  accord  with  my  views  of  justice  and  policy  to  15 
give  away  the  public  lands  altogether,  as  mere  matter  of 
gratuity,  I  .am  asked  by  the  honorable  gentleman  on  what 
ground  it  is  that  I  consent  to  vote  them  away  in  partic- 
ular instances.  How,  he  inquires,  do  I  reconcile  with 
these  professed  sentiments,  my  support  of  measures  20 
appropriating  portions  of  the  lands  to  particular  roads, 
particular  canals,  particular  rivers,  and  particular  insti- 
tutions of  education  in  the  West  ?  This  leads,  Sir,  to 
the  real  and  wide  difference,  in  political  opinion,  between 
the  honorable  gentleman  and  myself.  On  my  part,  I  25 
look  upon  all  these  objects  as  connected  with  the  com- 
mon good,  fairly  embraced  in  its  object  and  its  terms ; 
he,  on  the  contrary,  deems  them  all,  if  good  at  all,  only 
local  good.  This  is  our  difference.  The  interrogatory 
which  he  proceeded  to  put  at  once  explains  this  differ-  30 
ence.  "  What  interest,"  asks  he,  "  has  South  Carolina  in 
a  canal  in  Ohio  ?  "  Sir,  this  very  question  is  full  of  sig- 
nificance. It  develops  the  gentleman's  whole  political 
system ;  and  its  answer  expounds  mine.  Here  we  differ. 


196  Webster. 

I  look  upon  a  road  over  the  Alleghanies,  a  canal  round 
the  falls  of  uhe  Ohio,  or  a  canal  or  railway  from  the 
Atlantic  to  the  Western  waters,  as  being  an  object  large 
and  extensive  enough  to  be  fairly  said  to  be  for  the  com- 

5  mon  benefit.  The  gentleman  thinks  otherwise,  and  this 
is  the  key  to  his  construction  of  the  powers  of  the  gov- 
ernment. He  may  well  ask  what  interest  has  South 
Carolina  in  a  canal  in  Ohio.  On  his  system,  it  is  true, 
she  has  no  interest.  On  that  system  Ohio  and  Carolina 

10  are  different  governments  and  different  countries ;  con- 
nected here,  it  is  true,  by  some  slight  and  ill-defined  bond 
of  union,  but  in  all  main  respects  separate  and  diverse. 
On  that  system  Carolina  has  no  more  interest  in  a  canal 
in  Ohio  than  in  Mexico.  The  gentleman,  therefore,  only 

15  follows  out  his  own  principles ;  he  does  no  more  than 
arrive  at  the  natural  conclusions  of  his  own  doctrines ; 
he  only  announces  the  true  results  of  that  creed  which 
he  has  adopted  himself,  and  would  persuade  others  to 
adopt,  when  he  thus  declares  that  South  Carolina  has  no 

20  interest  in  a  public  work  in  Ohio. 

Sir,  we  narrow-minded  people  of  New  England  do  not 
reason  thus.  Our  notion  of  things  is  entirely  different. 
We  look  upon  the  States,  not  as  separated,  but  as  united. 
We  love  to  dwell  on  that  union,  and  on  the  mutual  hap- 

25  piness  which  it  has  so  much  promoted,  and  the  common 
renown  which  it  has  so  greatly  contributed  to  acquire. 
In  our  contemplation,  Carolina  and  Ohio  are  parts  of  the 
same  country ;  States,  united  under  the  same  general 
government,  having  interests  common,  associated,  inter- 

30  mingled.  In  whatever  is  within  the  proper  sphere  of 
the  constitutional  power  of  this  government,  w^  look 
upon  the  States  as  one.  We  do  not  impose  geographical 

~"limrts"to"our^)alEri6tic  feeling  or  regard ;  we  do  not  follow 
rivers  and  mountains  and  lines  of  latitude  to  find  boun- 

35  daries  beyond  which  public  improvements  do  not  benefit 


Reply  to  Hayne.  197 

us.  We  who  come  here  as  agents  and  representatives  of 
these  narrow-minded  and  selfish  men  of  New  England, 
consider  ourselves  as  bound  to  regard  with  an  equal  eye 
the  good  of  the  whole,  in  whatever  is  within  our  powers 
of  legislation.  Sir,  if  a  railroad  or  canal,  beginning  in  5 
South  Carolina  and  ending  in  South  Carolina,  appeared 
to  me  to  be  of  national  importance  and  national  magni- 
tude, believing,  as  I  do,  that  the  power  of  government 
extends  to  the  encouragement  of  works  of  that  descrip- 
tion, if  I  were  to  stand  up  here  and  ask,  "What  interest  10 
has  Massachusetts  in  a  railroad  in  South  Carolina?  I 
should  not  be  willing  to  face  my  constituents.  These 
same  narrow-minded  men  would  tell  me  that  they  had 
sent  me  to  act  for  the  whole  country,  and  that  one  who 
possessed  too  little  comprehension,  either  of  intellect  or  15 
feeling,  one  who  was  not  large  enough,  both  in  mind  and 
in  heart,  to  embrace  the  whole,  was  not  fit  to  be  intrusted 
with  the  interest  of  any  part. 

Sir,  I  do  not  desire  to  enlarge  the  powers  of  the  gov- 
ernment by  unjustifiable  construction,  nor  to  exercise  20 
any  not  within  a  fair  interpretation.  But  when  it  is 
believed  that  a  power  does  exist,  then  it  is,  in  my  judg- 
ment/bo  be  exercised  for  the  general  benefit  of  the  whole> 
So  far  as  respects  the  exercise  of  such  a  power,  the  States 
are  one.  It  was  the  very  object  of  the  Constitution  to  25 
create  unity  of  interests  to  the  extent  of  the  powers  of 
the  general  government.  In  war  and  peace  we  are  one ; 
in  commerce,  one ;  because  the  authority  of  the  general 
government  reaches  to  war  and  peace,  and  to  the  regula- 
tion of  commerce.  I  have  never  seen  any  more  difficulty  so 
in  erecting  lighthouses  on  the  lakes,  than  on  the  ocean ; 
in  improving  the  harbors  of  inland  seas,  than  if  they 
were  within  the  ebb  and  flow  of  the  tide  ;  or  in  removing 
obstructions  in  the  vast  streams  of  the  West,  more  than 
in  any  work  to  facilitate  commerce  on  the  Atlantic  coast.  36 


198  Webster. 

If  there  be  any  power  for  one,  there  is  power  also  for  the 
other ;  and  they  are  all  and  equally  for  the  common  good 
of  the  country. 

There  are  other  objects,  apparently  more  local,  or  the 
5  benefit  of  which  is  less  general,  towards  which,  neverthe- 
less, I  have  concurred  with  others  to  give  aid  by  dona- 
tions of  land.  It  is  proposed  to  construct  a  road  in  or 
through  one  of  the  new  States  in  which  this  govern- 
ment possesses  large  quantities  of  land.  Have  the 

10  United  States  no  right,  or,  as  a  great  and  untaxed 
proprietor,  are  they  under  no  obligation,  to  contribute 
to  an  object  thus  calculated  to  promote  the  common 
good  of  all  the  proprietors,  themselves  included  ?  And 
even  with  respect  to  education,  which  is  the  extreme 

15  case,  let  the  question  be  considered.     In  the  first  placer' 

(as  we  have  seen,  it  was  made  matter  of  compact  with 

these  States  that  they  should  do  their  part  to  promote 

education.     In  the  next  place^our  whole  system  of  land 

laws  proceeds  on  the  idea  that  education  is  for  the  com- 

20  mon  good ;  because  in  every  division  a  certain  portion 
is  uniformly  reserved  and  appropriated  for  the  use  of 
schoolsj  And,  finallyyhave  not  these  new  States  singu- 
larly strong  claims  founded  on  the  ground  already  stated, 
that  the  government  is  a  great  untaxed  proprietor,  in  the 

25  ownership  of  the  soil)?  It  is  a  consideration  of  great 
importance,  that  probably  there  is  in  no  part  of  the 
country,  or  of  the  world,  so  great  call  for  the  means 
of  education,  as  in  these  new  States ;  owing  to  the  vast 
number  of  persons  within  those  ages  in  which  education 

30  and  instruction  are  usually  received,  if  received  at  all. 
This  is  the  natural  consequence  of  recency  of  settlement 
and  rapid  increase.  The  census  of  these  States  shows 
how  great  a  proportion  of  the  whole  population  occupies 
the  classes  between  infancy  and  manhood.  These  are  the 

35  wide  fields,  and  here  is  the  deep  and  quick  soil  for  the 


Reply  to  Hayne.  199 

seeds  of  knowledge  and  virtue ;  and  this  is  the  favored 
season,  the  very  spring-time  for  sowing  them.  Let  them 
be  disseminated  without  stint.  Let  them  be  scattered 
with  a  bountiful  hand,  broadcast.  Whatever  the  gov- 
ernment can  fairly  do  towards  these  objects,  in  my  5 
opinion,  ought  to  be  done. 

These,  Sir,  are  the  grounds,  succinctly  stated,  on  which 
my  votes  for  grants  of  lands  for  particular  objects  rest; 
while  I  maintain  at  the  same  time,  -t^iat  it  is  all  a  com- 
mon fund,  for  the  common  benefit^  And  reasons  like  10 
these,  I  presume,  have  influenced  the  votes  of  other  gen- 
tlemen of  New  England.  Those  who  have  a  different 
view  of  the  powers  of  the  government,  of  course,  come  to 
different  conclusions  on  these,  as  on  other  questions.  I 
observed,  when  speaking  on  this  subject  before,  that  if  15 
we  looked  to  any  measure,  whether  for  a  road,  a  canal, 
or  anything  else,  intended  for  the  improvement  of  the 
West,  it  would  be  found  that,  if  the  New  England  ayes 
were  struck  out  of  the  lists  of  votes,  the  Southern  noes 
would  always  have  rejected  the  measure.  The  truth  of  20 
this  has  not  been  denied,  and  cannot  be  denied.  In  stat- 
ing this,  I  thought  it  just  to  ascribe  it  to  the  constitu- 
tional scruples  of  the  South,  rather  than  to  any  other 
less  favorable  or  less  charitable  cause.  But  no  sooner 
had  I  done  this,  than  the  honorable  gentleman  asks  if  25 
I  reproach  him  and  his  friends  with  their  constitutional 
scruples.  Sir,  I  reproach  nobody.  I  stated  a  fact,  and 
gave  the  most  respectful  reason  for  it  that  occurred  to 
me.  The  gentleman  cannot  deny  the  fact ;  he  may,  if  he 
choose,  disclaim  the  reason.  It  is  not  long  since  I  had  30 
occasion,  in  presenting  a  petition  from  his  own  State,  to 
account  for  its  being  intrusted  to  my  hands,  by  saying 
that  the  constitutional  opinions  of  the  gentleman  and 
his  worthy  colleague  prevented  them  from  supporting  it. 
Sir,  did  I  state  this  as  matter  of  reproach  ?  Far  from  it.  35 


•'•,, 


200  Webster. 


Did  I  attempt  to  find  any  other  cause  than  an  honest  one 
for  these  scruples  ?  Sir,  I  did  not.  It  did  not  become 
me  to  doubt  or  to  insinuate  that  the  gentleman  had 
either  changed  his  sentiments,  or  that  he  had  made  up  a 
5  set  of  constitutional  opinions  accommodated  to  any  par- 
ticular combination  of  political  occurrences.  Had  I  done 
so,  I  should  have  felt  that,  while  I  was  entitled  to  little 
credit  in  thus  questioning  other  people's  motives,  I  justi- 
fied the  whole  world  in  suspecting  my  own.  But  how 

10  has  the  gentleman  returned  this  respect  for  others'  opin- 
ions ?  His  own  candor  and  justice,  how  have  they  been 
exhibited  towards  the  motives  of  others,  while  he  has 
been  at  so  much  pains  to  maintain,  what  nobody  has 
disputed,  the  purity  of  his  own?  Why,  Sir,  he  has 

15  asked  when,  and  how,  and  why,  New  England  votes  were 
found  going  for  measures  favorable  to  the  West  ?  He 
has  demanded  to  be  informed  whether  all  this  did  not 
begin  in  1825,  and  while  the  election  of  President  was 
still  pending  ?  .  .  . 

20  [Mr.  Webster  answers  this  insinuation  by  showing  that  the 
generous  policy  of  New  England  toward  the  West  found  ex- 
pression years  before  the  political  exigency  referred  to  ;  and 
that  it  was  embodied  in  the  two  well-known  Acts  of  1820  and 
1821,  "by  far  the  most  important  general  measures  respecting 

25  the  public  lands  which  have  been  adopted  in  the  last  twenty 
years."] 

Having  recurred  to  these  two  important  measures,  in 
answer  to  the  gentleman's  inquiries,  I  must  now  beg 
permission  to  go  back  to  a  period  yet  somewhat  earlier, 
so  for  the  purpose  of  still  further  showing  ho^much,  or 
rather  how  little,  reason  there  is  for  the  gentleman's 
insinuation  that  political  hopes  or  fears,  or  party  asso- 
ciations, were  the  grounds  of  these  New  England  votes. 
And  after  what  has  been  said,  I  hope  it  may  be  forgiven 


/   /' 

• 

Reply  to  Hayne.  201 

-4x     - 

me  if  I  allude  to  some  political  opinions  and  votes  of  my 

own,  of  very  little  public  importance  certainly,  but  which, 
from  the  time  at  which  they  were  given  and  expressed, 
may  pass  for  good  witnesses  on  this  occasion. 

This  government,  Mr.  President,  from  its  origin  to  the  5 
peace  of  1815,  had  been  too  much  engrossed  with  vari- 
ous  other  important  concerns  to  be   able   to  turn  its 
thoughts   inward,   and  look  to  the  development  of  its 
vast  internal  resources.     In  the  early  part  of  President 
Washington's  administration,  it  was  fully  occupied  with  10 
completing  its  own  organization,  providing  for  the  public 
debt,  defending  the  frontiers,  and  maintaining  domestic 
peace.     Before  the  termination  of  that  administration 
the  fires  of  the  French  Revolution  blazed  forth,  as  from 
a  new-opened  volcano,  and  the  whole  breadth  of  the  15 
ocean  did  not  secure  us  from  its  effects.     The  smoke 
and  the  cinders  reached  us,  though  not  the  burning  lava. 
Difficult  and  agitating  questions,  embarrassing  to  gov- 
ernment and  dividing  public  opinion,  sprung  out  of  the 
new  state  of  our  foreign  relations,  and  were  succeeded  by  20 
others,  and  yet  again,  by  others,  equally  embarrassing 
and  equally  exciting  division  and  discord,  through  the 
long  series  of  twenty  years,  till  they  finally  issued  in  the 
war  with  England.     Down  to  the  close  of  that  war  no 
distinct,  marked,  and  deliberate  attention  had  been  given,  25 
or  could  have  been  given,  to  the  internal  condition  of  the 
country,  its  capacities  of  improvement,  or  the  constitu- 
tional power  of  the  government  in  regard  to  objects  con- 
nected with  such  improvement. 

The  peace,  Mr.  President,  brought  about  an  entirely  30 
new  and  a  most  interesting  state  of  things ;  it  opened 
to  us  other  prospects  and  suggested  other  duties.  We 
ourselves  were  changed^  and  the  whole  world  was 
changed.  The  pacification  of  Europe,  after  June, 
1815,  assumed  a  firm  and  permanent  aspect.  The  na-35 


202  Webster. 

tions  evidently  manifested  that  they  were  disposed  for 
-  peace.     Some  agitation  of  the  waves  might  be  expected, 

-^  even  after  the  storm  had  subsided,  but  the  tendency  was, 

strongly  and  rapidly,  towards  settled  repose. 
5  It  so  happened,  Sir,  that  I  was  at  that  time  a  mem- 
ber of  Congress,  and,  like  others,  naturally  turned  my 
thoughts  to  the  contemplation  of  the  recently  altered 
condition  of  the  country  and  of  the  world.  It  appeared 
plainly  enough  to  me,  as  well  as  to  wiser  and  more 

10  experienced  men,  that  the  policy  of  the  government 
would  naturally  take  a  start  in  a  new  direction;  be- 
cause new  directions  would  necessarily  be  given  to  the 
pursuits  and  occupations  of  the  people.  We  had  pushed 
our  commerce  far  and  fast,  under  the  advantage  of  a 

15  neutral  flag.  But  there  were  now  no  longer  flags,  either 
neutral  or  belligerent.  The  harvest  of  neutrality  had 
been  great,  but  we  had  gathered  it  all.  With  the  peace 
of  Europe  it  was  obvious  there  would  spring  up  in  her 
circle  of  nations  a  revived  and  invigorated  spirit  of  trade, 

20  and  a  new  activity  in  all  the  business  and  objects  of 
civilized  life.  Hereafter,  our  commercial  gains  were  to 
be  earned  only  by  success  in  a  close  and  intense  competi- 
tion. Other  nations  would  produce  for  themselves,  and 
carry  for  themselves,  and  manufacture  for  themselves,  to 

25  the  full  extent  of  their  abilities.  The  crops  of  our  plains 
would  no  longer  sustain  European  armies,  nor  our  ships 
longer  supply  those  whom  war  had  rendered  unable  to 
supply  themselves.  It  was  obvious  that,  under  these 
circumstances,  the  country  would  begin  to  survey  itself, 

30  and  to  estimate  its  own  capacity  of  improvement. 

And  this  improvement  —  how  was  it  to  be  accom- 
plished, and  who  was  to  accomplish  it  ?  We  were  ten 
or  twelve  millions  of  people,  spread  over  almost  half  a 
world.  We  were  more  than  twenty  States,  some  stretch- 

35  ing  along  the  same  seaboard,  some  along  the  same  line  of 


Reply  to  Hayne.  203 

inland  frontier,  and  others  on  opposite  banks  of  the  same 
vast  rivers.  Two  considerations  at  once  presented  them- 
selves with  great  force  in  looking  at  this  state  of  things. 
One  was,  that  that  great  branch  of  improvement  which 
consisted  in  furnishing  new  facilities  of  intercourse,  5 
necessarily  ran  into  different  States  in  every  leading 
instance,  and  would  benefit  the  citizens  of  all  such 
States.  No  one  State,  therefore,  in  such  cases,  would 
assume  the  whole  expense,  nor  was  the  co-operation 
of  several  States  to  be  expected.  Take  the  instance  of  ic 
the  Delaware  breakwater.  It  will  cost  several  millions 
of  money.  Would  Pennsylvania  alone  ever  have  con- 
structed it?  Certainly  never  while  this  Union  lasts, 
because  it  is  not  for  her  sole  benefit.  Would  Pennsyl- 
vania, Xew  Jersey,  and  Delaware  have  united  to  accom- 15 
plish  it  at  their  joint  expense  ?  Certainly  not,  for  the 
same  reason.  It  could  not  be  done,  therefore,  but  by 
the  general  government.  The  same  may  be  said  of  the 
large  inland  undertakings,  except  that,  in  them,  govern- 
ment, instead  of  bearing  the  whole  expense,  co-operates  20 
with  others  who  bear  a  part.  The  other  consideration  is, 
that  the  United  States  have  the  means.  They  enjoy  the 
revenues  derived  from  commerce,  and  the  States  have  no 
abundant  and  easy  sources  of  public  income.  The  cus- 
tom-houses fill  the  general  treasury,  while  the  States  25 
have  scanty  resources,  except  by  resort  to  heavy  direct 
taxes. 

Under  this  view  of  things,  I  thought  it  necessary  to 
settle,  at  least  for  myself,  some  definite  notions  with 
respect  to  the  powers  of  the  government  in  regard  to  30 
internal  affairs.  It  may  not  savor  too  much  of  self-com- 
mendation to  remark  that,  with  this  object,  I  considered 
the  Constitution,  its  judicial  construction,  its  contempo- 
raneous exposition,  and  the  whole  history  of  the  legisla- 
tion of  Congress  under  it ;  and  I  arrived  at  the  conclusion  35 


204  Webster. 

that  government  had  power  to  accomplish  sundry  objects, 
—  or  aid  in.  their  accomplishment,  —  which  are  now  com- 
monly spoken  of  as  internal  improvements.  That  conclu- 
sion, Sir,  may  have  been  right,  or  it  may  have  been  wrong. 

5  I  am  not  about  to  argue  the  grounds  of  it  at  large.  I  say 
only,  that  it  was  adopted  and  acted  on  even  so  early  as 
in  1816.  Yes,  Mr.  President,  I  made  up  my  opinion,  and 
determined  on  my  intended  course  of  political  conduct 
on  these  subjects,  in  the  Fourteenth  Congress,  in  1816. 

10  And  now,  Mr.  President,  I  have  further  to  say,  that  I 
made  up  these  opinions,  and  entered  on  this  course  of 
political  conduct  T&ucro  duce.  Yes,  Sir,  I  pursued  in  all 
this  a  South  Carolina  track  on  the  doctrines  of  internal 
improvement.  South  Carolina,  as  she  was  then  repre- 

15  sented  in  the  other  House,  set  forth  in  1816,  under  a 
fresh  and  leading  breeze,  and  I  was  among  the  followers. 
But  if  my  leader  sees  new  lights,  and  turns  a  sharp 
corner,  unless  I  see  new  lights  also,  I  keep  straight  on 
in  the  same  path.  I  repeat  that  leading  gentlemen  from 

20  South  Carolina  were  first  and  foremost  in  behalf  of  the 
doctrines  of  internal  improvements,  when  those  doctrines 
came  first  to  be  considered  and  acted  upon  in  Congress. 
The  debate  on  the  bank  question,  on  the  tariff  of  1816, 
and  on  the  direct  tax,  will  show  who  was  who,  and  what 

25  was  what,  at  that  time.  The  tariff  of  1816  (one  of  the 
plain  cases  of  oppression  and  usurpation,  from  which,  if 
the  government  does  not  recede,  individual  States  may 
justly  secede  from  the  government)  is,  Sir,  in  truth,  a 
South  Carolina  tariff,  supported  by  South  Carolina  votes. 

30  But  for  those  votes,  it  could  not  have  passed  in  the  form 
in  which  it  did  pass ;  whereas,  if  it  had  depended  on 
Massachusetts  votes,  it  would  have  been  lost.  Does  not 
the  honorable  gentleman  well  know  all  this  ?  There  are 
certainly  those  who  do  full  well  know  it  all.  I  do  not 

35  say  this  to  reproach  South  Carolina.     I  only  state  the 


Reply  to  Hayne.  205 

fact ;  and  I  think  it  will  appear  to  be  true,  that  among 
the  earliest  and  boldest  advocates  of  the  tariff  as  a  meas- 
ure of  protection,  and  on  the  express  ground  of  protec- 
tion, were  leading  gentlemen  of  South  Carolina  in 
Congress.  I  did  not  then,  and  cannot  now,  under-  5 
stand  their  language  in  any  other  sense.  While  this 
tariff  of  1816  was  under  discussion  in  the  House  of 
Kepresentatives,  an  honorable  gentleman  from  Georgia, 
now  of  this  House  [Mr.  Forsyth],  moved  to  reduce  the 
proposed  duty  on  cotton.  He  failed  by  four  votes,  South  10 
Carolina  giving  three  votes  (enough  to  have  turned  the 
scale)  against  his  motion.  The  act,  Sir,  then  passed,  and 
received  on  its  passage  the  support  of  a  majority  of  the 
Kepresentatives  of  South  Carolina  present  and  voting. 
This  act  is  the  first  in  the  order  of  those  now  denounced  15 
as  plain  usurpations.  We  see  it  daily  in  the  list,  by  the 
side  of  those  of  1824  and  1828,  as  a  case  of  manifest 
oppression,  justifying  disunion.  I  put  it  home  to  the 
honorable  member  from  South  Carolina,  that  his  own 
State  was  not  only  "  art  and  part "  in  this  measure,  but  20 
the  causa  causans.  Without  her  aid  this  seminal  prin- 
ciple of  mischief,  this  root  of  Upas,  could  not  have  been 
planted.  I  have  already  said,  and  it  is  true,  that  this 
act  proceeded  on  the  ground  of  protection.  It  interfered 
directly  with  existing  interests  of  great  value  and  amount.  25 
It  cut  up  the  Calcutta  cotton  trade  by  the  roots ;  but  it 
passed,  nevertheless,  and  it  passed  on  the  principle  of 
protecting  manufactures,  on  the  principle  against  free 
trade,  on  the  principle  opposed  to  that  which  lets  us 
alone.  30 

Such,  Mr.  President,  were  the  opinions  of  important 
and  leading  gentlemen  from  South  Carolina  on  the  sub- 
ject of  internal  improvement,  in  1816.  I  went  out  of 
Congress  the  next  year,  and  returning  again  in  1823, 
thought  I  found  South  Carolina  where  I  had  left  her.  35 


206  Webster. 

I  really  supposed  that  all  things  remained  as  they  were, 
and  that  the  South  Carolina  doctrine  of  internal  improve- 
ments would  be  defended  by  the  same  eloquent  voices 
and  the  same  strong  arms  as  formerly.  In  the  lapse  of 
5  these  six  years,  it  is  true,  political  associations  had  as- 
sumed a  new  aspect  and  new  divisions.  A  strong  party 
had  arisen  in  the  South  hostile  to  the  doctrine  of  inter- 
nal improvements.  Anti-consolidation  was  the  flag  under 
which  this  party  fought;  and  its  supporters  inveighed 

10  against  internal  improvements,  much  after  the  manner 
in  which  the  honorable  gentleman  has  now  inveighed 
against  them,  as  part  and  parcel  of  the  system  of  consol- 
idation. Whether  this  party  arose  in  South  Carolina 
itself,  or  in  the  neighborhood,  is  more  than  I  know.  I 

15  think  the  latter.  However  that  may  have  been,  there 
were  those  found  in  South  Carolina  ready  to  make  war 
upon  it,  and  who  did  make  intrepid  war  upon  it.  Xames 
being  regarded  as  things  in  such  controversies,  they  be- 
stowed on  the  anti-improvement  gentlemen  the  appella- 

20  tion  of  Eadicals.  Yes,  Sir,  the  appellation  of  Radicals, 
as  a  term  of  distinction  applicable  and  applied  to  those 
who  denied  the  liberal  doctrines  of  internal  improvement, 
originated,  according  to  the  best  of  my  recollection,  some- 
where between  North  Carolina  and  Georgia.  Well,  Sir, 

25  these  mischievous  Eadicals  were  to  be  put  down,  and 
the  strong  arm  of  South  Carolina  was  stretched  out  to 
put  them  down.  About  this  time,  Sir,  I  returned  to  Con- 
gress. The  battle  with  the  Eadicals  had  been  fought, 
and  our  South  Carolina  champions  of  the  doctrines  of 

30  internal  improvement  had  nobly  maintained  their  ground, 
and  were  understood  to  have  achieved  a  victory.  We 
looked  upon  them  as  conquerors.  They  had  driven  back 
the  enemy  with  discomfiture,  —  a  thing,  by  the  way, 
Sir,  which  is  not  always  performed  when  it  is  promised. 

35  A  gentleman  to  whom  I  have  already  referred  in  this 


Reply  to  Hayne.  207 

debate  had  come  into  Congress,  during  my  absence  from 
it,  from  South  Carolina,  and  had  brought  with  him  a 
high  reputation  for  ability.  He  came  from  a  school  with 
which  we  had  been  acquainted,  et  noscitur  a  sociis.  I 
hold  in  my  hand,  Sir,  a  printed  speech  of  this  distin-  5 
guished  gentleman  [Mr.  McDuffie]  "  On  Internal  Improve- 
ments," delivered  about  the  period  to  which  I  now  refer, 
and  printed  with  a  few  introductory  remarks  upon  con- 
solidation; in  which,  Sir,  I  think  he  quite  consolidated 
the  arguments  of  his  opponents,  the  Kadicals,  if  to  crush  10 
be  to  consolidate. 

[Mr.  Webster  quotes  passages  from  the  speech  claiming  for  the 
"Republican"  party  of  that  time, — the  dominant  party  in  the 
South,  —  and  for  the  South  Carolinian  delegation  in  Congress, 
led  by  Mr.  Calhoun,  the  honor  of  originating  the  system  and  15 
policy  of  internal  improvements.] 

Such  are  the  opinions,  Sir,  which  were  maintained  by 
South  Carolina  gentlemen  in  the  House  of  Representa- 
tives, on  the  subject  of  internal  improvements,  when  I 
took  my  seat  there  as  a  member  from  Massachusetts  in  20 
1823.  But  this  is  not  all.  We  had  a  bill  before  us,  and 
passed  it  in  that  House,  entitled,  "  An  Act  to  procure  the 
necessary  surveys,  plans,  and  estimates  upon  the  subject 
of  roads  and  canals."  It  authorized  the  President  to 
cause  surveys  and  estimates  to  be  made  of  the  routes  of  25 
such  roads  and  canals  as  he  might  deem  of  national  im- 
portance in  a  commercial  or  military  point  of  view,  or 
for  the  transportation  of  the  mail,  and  appropriated 
thirty  thousand  dollars  out  of  the  treasury  to  defray  the 
expense.  This  act,  though  preliminary  in  its  nature,  30 
covered  the  whole  ground.  It  took  for  granted  the  com- 
plete power  of  internal  improvement,  as  far  as  any  of 
its  advocates  had  ever  contended  for  it.  Having  passed 
the  other  House,  the  bill  came  up  to  the  Senate,  and  was 


208  Webster. 

here  considered  and  debated  in  April,  1824.  The  honor- 
able member  from  South  Carolina  was  a  member  of  the 
Senate  at  that  time.  While  the  bill  was  under  consid- 
eration here,  a  motion  was  made  to  add  the  following 
5  proviso :  — 

"Provided,  That  nothing  herein  contained  shall  be 
construed  to  affirm  or  admit  a  power  in  Congress,  on 
their  own  authority,  to  make  roads  or  canals  within  any 
of  the  States  of  the  Union."  The  yeas  and  nays  were 

10  taken  on  this  proviso,  and  the  honorable  member  voted 
in  the  negative !  The  proviso  failed. 

A  motion  was  then  made  to  add  this  proviso ;  viz.,  — 
"Provided,  That  the  faith  of  the  United  States  is 
hereby  pledged,  that  no  money  shall  ever  be  expended 

15  for  roads  or  canals,  except  it  shall  be  among  the  several 

States,  and  in  the  same  proportion  as  direct  taxes  are 

laid  and  assessed  by  the  provisions  of  the  Constitution." 

The  honorable  member  voted  against  this  proviso  also, 

and  it  failed.     The  bill  was  then  put  on  its  passage,  and 

20  the  honorable  member  voted  for  it,  and  it  passed,  and 
became  a  law. 

!N"ow,  it  strikes  me^  Sir,  that  there  is  no  maintaining 
these  votes  but  upon  tne  power  of  internal  improvement, 
in  its  broadest  sense.  In  truth,  these  bills  for  surveys 

25  and  estimates  have  always  been  considered  as  test  ques- 
tions; they  show  who  is  for  and  Avho  against  internal 
improvement.  This  law  itself  went  the  whole  length, 
and  assumed  the  full  and  complete  power.  The  gentle- 
man's votes  sustained  that  power,  in  every  form  in  which 

30  the  various  propositions  to  amend  presented  it.  He  went 
for  the  entire  and  unrestrained  authority,  without  con- 
sulting the  States,  and  without  agreeing  to  any  propor- 
tionate distribution.  And  now  suffer  me  to  remind  you, 
Mr.  President,  that  it  is  this  very  same  power,  thus  sanc- 

35  tioned  in  every  form  by  the  gentleman's  own  opinion, 


Reply  to  Hayne.  209 

that  is  so  plain  and  manifest  a  usurpation  that  the  State 
of  South  Carolina  is  supposed  to  be  justified  in  refusing 
submission  to  any  laws  carrying  the  power  into  effect. 
Truly,  Sir,  is  not  this  a  little  too  hard  ?     May  we  not 
crave  some  rnercy,  under  favor  and  protection  of  the  gen-  5 
tleman's  own  authority  ?     Admitting  that  a  road,  or  a 
canal,  must  be  written  down  flat  usurpation  as  was  ever  - 
committed,  may  we  find  no  mitigation  in  our  respect  for 
his  place  and  his  vote,  as  one  that  knows  the  law  ? 

The  tariff,  which  South  Carolina  had  an  efficient  hand  10 
in  establishing  in  1816,  and  this  asserted  power  of  inter- 
nal improvement,  advanced  by  her  in  the  same  year,  and, 
as  we  have  seen,  approved  and  sanctioned  by  her  repre- 
sentatives in  1824  —  these  two  measures  are  the  great 
grounds  on  which  she  is  now  thought  to  be  justified  in  15 
breaking  up  the  Union,  if  she  sees  fit  to  break  it  up ! 

I  may  now  safely  say,  I  think,  that  we  have  had  the 
authority  of  leading  and  distinguished  gentlemen  from 
South  Carolina  in  support  of  the  doctrine  of  internal 
improvement.  I  repeat  that,  up  to  1824,  I,  for  one,  fol-  20 
lowed  South  Carolina ;  but  when  that  star,  in  its  ascen- 
sion, veered  off  in  an  unexpected  direction,  I  relied  on 
its  light  no  longer. 

[Here  the  Yice-President  said,  ' '  Does  the  chair  understand 
the  gentleman  from  Massachusetts  to  say  that  the  person  now  25 
occupying  the   chair  of  the  Senate  has   changed  his  opinions 
on  the  subject  of  internal  improvements  ?  "] 

From  nothing  ever  said  to  me,  Sir,  have  I  had  reason 
to  know  of  any  change  in  the  opinions  of  the  person  fill- 
ing the  chair  of  the  Senate.  If  such  change  has  taken  so 
place,  I  regret  it.  I  speak  generally  of  the  State  of  South 
Carolina.  Individuals  we  know  there  are  who  hold 
opinions  favorable  to  the  power.  An  application  for  its 
exercise,  in  behalf  of  a  public  work  in  South  Carolina 


210  Webster. 

itself,  is  now  pending,  I  believe,  in  the  other  House, 
presented  by  members  from  that  State. 

I  have  thus,  Sir,  perhaps  not  without  some  tediousness 
of  detail,  shown,  if  I  am  in  error  on  the  subject  of  inter- 

5  nal  improvement,  how,  and  in  what  company,  I  fell  into 
that  error.  If  I  am  wrong,  it  is  apparent  who  misled 
me. 

I  go  to  other  remarks  of  the  honorable  member ;  and  I 
have  to  complain  of  an  entire  misapprehension  of  what 

10  I  said  on  the  subject  of  the  national  debt,  though  I  can 
hardly  perceive  how  any  one  could  misunderstand  me. 
What  I  said  was,  not  that  I  wished  to  put  off  the  pay- 
ment of  the  debt,  but,  on  the  contrary ^that  I  had  always 
voted  for  every  measure  for  its  reduction  as  uniformly 

15  as  the  gentleman  himself,  j  He  seems  to  claim  the  ex- 
clusive merit  of  a  disposition  to  reduce  the  public  charge. 
I  do  not  allow  it  to  him.  /  As  a  debt,  I  was,  I  am,  for 
paying  it,  because  it  is  a  charge  on  our  finances  and 
on  the  industry  of  the  country.^)  But  I  observed  that  I 

20  thought  I  perceived  a  morbid  fervor  on  that  subject — 
an  excessive  anxiety  to  pay  off  the  debt,  not  so  much 
because  it  is  a  debt  simply,  as  because,^while  it  lasts,  it 
furnishes  one  objection  to  disunion.fi  It  is,  while  it  con- 
tinues, a  tie  of  common  interest/A  I  did  not  impute  such 

25  motives  to  the  honorable  member  himself,  but  that  there 
is  such  a  feeling  in  existence  I  have  not  a  particle  of 
doubt.  The  most  I  said  was,  that  if  one  effect  of  the 
debt  was  to  strengthen  our  Union,  that  effect  itself  was 
not  regretted  by  me,  however  much  others  might  regret 

30  it.  The  gentleman  has  not  seen  how  to  reply  to  this 
otherwise  than  by  supposing  me  to  have  advanced  the 
doctrine  -that  a  national  debt  is  a  national  blessing. 
Others,  I  must  hope,  will  find  much  less  difficulty  in 
understanding  me.  I  distinctly  and  pointedly  cautioned 

35  the  honorable  member  not  to  understand  me  as  express- 


Reply  to  Hayne.  211 

ing  an  opinion  favorable  to  the  continuance  of  the  debt. 
I  repeated  this  caution,  and  repeated  it  more  than  once ; 
but  it  was  thrown  away. 

On  yet  another  point  I  was  still  more  unaccountably 
misunderstood.     The  gentleman  had  harangued  against  5 
"  consolidation."     I  told  him  in  reply  that  there  was 
one  kind  of  consolidation  to  which  I  was  attached,  and 
thai/was  the  consolidation  of  our  Union ;  and  that  this 
was  precisely  that  consolidation  to  which  I  feared  others 
were  not  attached,  and  that  (such  consolidation  was  the  10 
very  end  of  the  Constitution^the  leading  object,  as  they 
had  informed  us  themselves,  which  its  framers  had  kept 
in  view.     I  turned  to  their  communication,  and  read  their 
very  words,  "  the  consolidation  of  the  Union,"  and  ex- 
pressed my  devotion  to  this  sort  of  consolidation.     I  said  15 
in  terms  that  I  wished  not,  in  the  slightest  degree,  to 
augment  the  powers  of  this  government;  (that  my  object 
was  to  preserve,  not  to  enlarge  ;  and  that  oy  consolidat- 
ing the  Union  I  understood  no  more  than  the  strength- 
ening of  the  Union,  and  perpetuating  it)    Having  been  20 
thus  explicit,  having  thus  read  from  the  printed  book 
the  precise  words  which  I  adopted  as  expressing  my  own 
sentiments,  it  passes  comprehension  how  any  man  could 
understand  me  as  contending  for  an  extension  of  the 
powers  of  the  government,  or  for,  consolidation  in  that  25 
odious  sense,  in  which  it  means  an  accumulation  in  the 
federal  government  of  the  powers  properly  belonging  to 
the  State  J/V^-^- 

I  repeat,  Sir,  that,  in  adopting  the  sentiment  of  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution,  I  read  their  language  audi-  30 
bly,  and  word  for  word ;  and  I  pointed  out  the  distinc- 
tion, just  as  fully  as  I  have  now  done,  between  the 
consolidation  of  the  Union  and  that  other  obnoxious  con- 
solidation which  I  disclaimed.  And  yet  the  honorable 
member  misunderstood  me.  The  gentleman  had  said  35 


212  Webster. 

that  he  wished  for  no  fixed  revenue,  —  not  a  shilling. 

If  by  a  word  he  could  convert  the  Capitol  into  gold,  he 

would  not  do  it.     Why  all  this  fear  of  revenue  ?     Why, 

(Sir,  because,  as  the  gentleman  told  us,  it  tends  to  consol- 

5  idation.     Now,  this  can  mean  neither  more  nor  less  than 

that  a  common  revenue  is  a  common  interest,  and  that 

all  common  interests  tend  to  preserve  the  union  of  the 

States.     I  confess  I  like  that  tendency  ;  if  the  gentleman 

dislikes  it,  he  is  right  in  deprecating  a  shilling  of  fixed 

10  revenue/    So  much,  Sir,  for  consolidation.  .  .  . 

Professing  to  be  provoked  by  what  he  chose  to  con- 
sider a  charge  made  by  me  against  South  Carolina,  the 
honorable  member,  Mr.  President,  has  taken  up  a  new 
crusade  against  New  England.  Leaving  altogether  the 

15  subject  of  the  public  lands,  in  which  his  success,  perhaps, 
had  been  neither  distinguished  nor  satisfactory,  and  let- 
ting go,  also,  of  the  topic  of  the  tariff,  he  sallied  forth  in 
a  general  assault  on  the  opinions,  politics,  and  parties  of 
New  England,  as  they  have  been  exhibited  in  the  last 

20  thirty  years.  This  is  natural.  The  "  narrow  policy " 
of  the  public  lands  had  proved  a  legal  settlement  in 
South  Carolina,  and  was  not  to  be  removed.  The  "ac- 
cursed policy"  of  the  tariff,  also,  had  established  the 
fact  of  its  birth  and  parentage  in  the  same  State.  No 

25  wonder,  therefore,  the  gentleman  wished  to  carry  the 
war,  as  he  expressed  it,  into  the  enemy's  country.  Pru- 
dently willing  to  quit  these  subjects,  he  was,  doubtless, 
desirous  of  fastening  on  others,  which  could  not  be  trans- 
ferred south  of  Mason  and  Dixon's  line.  The  politics  of 

30  New  England  became  his  theme  ;  and  it  was  in  this  part 
of  his  speech,  I  think,  that  he  menaced  me  with  such 
sore  discomfiture.  Discomfiture  !  Why,  Sir,  when  he 
attacks  anything  which  I  maintain,  and  overthrows  it, 
when  he  turns  the  right  or  left  of  any  position  which  I 

3*  take  up,  when  he  drives  me  from  any  ground  I  choose  to 


Reply  to  Hayne.  213 

occupy,  lie  may  then  talk  of  discomfiture,  but  not  tiL 
that  distant  day.  What  has  he  done  ?  Has  he  main- 
tained his  own  charges  ?  Has  he  proved  what  he  alleged  ? 
Has  he  sustained  himself  in  his  attack  on  the  govern- 
ment, and  on  the  history  of  the  North,  in  the  matter  of  5 
the  public  lands  ?  Has  he  disproved  a  fact,  refuted  a 
proposition,  weakened  an  argument,  maintained  by  me  ? 
Has  he  come  within  beat  of  drum  of  any  position  of 
mine  ?  Oh,  no ;  but  he  has  "  carried  the  war  into  the 
enemy's  country ! "  Carried  the  war  into  the  enemy's  10 
country !  Yes,  Sir,  and  what  sort  of  a  war  has  he  made 
of  it  ?  Why,  Sir,  he  has  stretched  a  drag-net  over  the 
whole  surface  of  perished  pamphlets,  indiscreet  sermons, 
frothy  paragraphs,  and  fuming  popular  addresses ;  over 
whatever  the  pulpit  in  its  moments  of  alarm,  the  press  15 
in  its  heats,  and  parties  in  their  extravagance,  have  sev- 
erally thrown  off  in  times  of  general  excitement  and  vio- 
lence. He  has  thus  swept  together  a  mass  of  such  things 
as,  but  that  they  are  now  old  and  cold,  the  public  health 
would  have  required  him  rather  to  leave  in  their  state  20 
of  dispersion.  For  a  good  long  hour  or  two  we  had  the 
unbroken  pleasure  of  listening  to  the  honorable  member, 
while  he  recited  with  his  usual  grace  and  spirit,  and  with 
evident  high  gusto,  speeches,  pamphlets,  addresses,  and 
all  the  et  ceteras  of  the  political  press,  such  as  warm  25 
heads  produce  in  warm  times ;  and  such  as  it  would  be 
"  discomfiture  "  indeed  for  any  one,  whose  taste  did  not 
delight  in  that  sort  of  reading,  to  be  obliged  to  peruse. 
This  is  his  war.  This  it  is  to  carry  war  into  the  enemy's 
country.  It  is  in  an  invasion  of  this  sort  that  he  flatters  30 
himself  with  the  expectation  of  gaining  laurels  fit  to 
adorn  a  Senator's  brow ! 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  not,  it  will  not,  I  trust,  be 
expected  that  I  should,  either  now  or  at  any  time,  sepa- 
rate this  farrago  into  parts,  and  answer  and  examine  its  36 


214  Webster. 

components.  I  shall  barely  bestow  upon  it  all  a  general 
remark  or  two.  In  the  run  of  forty  years,  Sir,  under  this 
Constitution,  we  have  experienced  sundry  successive  vio- 
lent party  contests.  Party  arose,  indeed,  with  the  Con- 
6  stitution  itself,  and,  in  some  form  or  other,  has  attended 
it  through  the  greater  part  of  its  history.  Whether  any 
other  constitution  than  the  old  Articles  of  Confederation 
was  desirable,  was  itself  a  question  on  which  parties 
divided;  if  a  new  Constitution  were  framed,  what 

10  powers  should  be  given  to  it  was  another  question ; 
and,  when  it  had  been  formed,  what  was,  in  fact,  the 
just  extent  of  the  powers  actually  conferred  was  a  third. 
Parties,  as  we  know,  existed  under  the  first  administra- 
tion, as  distinctly  marked  as  those  which  have  mani- 

15  fested  themselves  at  any  subsequent  period.  The 
contest  immediately  preceding  the  political  change  in 
-1801,  and  that,  again,  which  existed  at  the  commence- 
ment of  the  late  war,  are  other  instances  of  party  ex- 
citement, of  something  more  than  usual  strength  and 

20  intensity.  In  all  these  conflicts  there  was,  no  doubt, 
much  of  violence  on  both  and  all  sides.  It  would  be 
impossible,  if  one  had  a  fancy  for  such  employment,  to 
adjust  the  relative  quantum  of  violence  between  these 
contending  parties.  There  was  enough  in  each,  as  must 

25  always  be  expected  in  popular  governments.  With  a 
great  deal  of  proper  and  decorous  discussion  there  was 
mingled  a  great  deal,  also,  of  declamation,  virulence, 
crimination,  and  abuse.  In  regard  to  any  party,  proba- 
bly, at  one  of  the  leading  epochs  in  the  history  of  parties, 

30  enough  may  be  found  to  make  out  another  inflamed  exhi- 
bition, not  unlike  that  with  which  the  honorable  member 
has  edified  us.  For  myself,  Sir,  I  shall  not  rake  among 
the  rubbish  of  by-gone  times  to  see  what  I  can  find,  or 
whether  I  cannot  find  something  by  which  I  can  fix  a 

35  blot  on  the  escutcheon  of  any  State,  any  party,  or  any 


Reply  to  Hayne.  215 

part  of  the  country.  General  Washington's  administra- 
tion was  steadily  and  zealously  maintained,  as  we  all 
know,  by  Ne\r  England.  It  was  violently  opposed  else- 
where. We  know  in  what  quarter  he  had  the  most 
earnest,  constant,  and  persevering  support,  in  all  his  5 
great  and  leading  measures.  We  know  where  his  pri- 
vate and  personal  character  was  held  in  the  highest 
degree  of  attachment  and  veneration ;  and  we  know, 
too,  where  his  measures  were  opposed,  his  services 
slighted,  and  his  character  vilified.  We  know,  or  we  10 
might  know,  if  we  turned  to  the  journals,,  who  expressed 
respect,  gratitude,  and  regret  when  he  retired  from  the 
chief  magistracy,  and  who  refused  to  express  either 
respect,  gratitude,  or  regret.  I  shall  not  open  those 
journals.  Publications  more  abusive  or  scurrilous  never  15 
saw  the  light  than  were  sent  forth  against  Washington 
and  all  his  leading  measures  from  presses  south  of  New 
England.  But  I  shall  not  look  them  up.  I  employ  no 
scavengers  ;  no  one  is  in  attendance  on  me,  tendering  such 
means  of  retaliation;  and,  if  there  were,  with  an  ass's  20 
load  of  them,  with  a  bulk  as  huge  as  that  which  the 
gentleman  himself  has  produced,  I  would  not  touch  one 
of  them.  I  see  enough  of  the  violence  of  our  own  times 
to  be  no  way  anxious  to  rescue  from  forgetfulness  the 
extravagances  of  times  past.  25 

Besides,  what  is  all  this  to  the  present  purpose  ?  It 
has  nothing  to  do  with  the  public  lands,  in  regard  to 
which  the  attack  was  begun ;  and  it  has  nothing  to  do 
with  those  sentiments  and  opinions  which  I  have  thought 
tend  to  disunion,  and  all  of  which  the  honorable  mem-  30 
ber  seems  to  have  adopted  himself,  and  undertaken  to 
defend.  New  England  has,  at  times,  so  argues  the 
gentleman,  held  opinions  as  dangerous  as  those  which 
he  now  holds.  Suppose  this  were  so;  why  should  he 
therefore  abuse  New  England  ?  Qf  he  finds  himself  35 


216  Webster. 

countenanced  by  acts  of  hers,  how  is  it  that,  while  he 
relies  on  these  acts,  he  covers,  or  seeks  to  cover,  their 
authors  with  reproach  ?)  But,  Sir,  if,  in  the  course  of 
forty  years,  there  have  been  undue  effervescences  of 
3  party  in  New  England,  has  the  same  thing  happened 
nowhere  else  ?  ...  If  the  gentleman  wishes  to  increase 
his  stores  of  party  abuse  and  frothy  violence,  if  he  has 
a  determined  proclivity  to  such  pursuits,  there  are 
treasures  of  that  sort  south  of  the  Potomac,  much  to 

10  his  taste,  yet  untouched.  .  .  .  The  gentleman's  purvey- 
ors have  only  catered  for  him  among  the  productions 
of  one  side.  I  certainly  shall  not  supply  the  deficiency 
by  furnishing  samples  of  the  other.  I  leave  to  him, 
and  to  them,  the  whole  concern.  It  is  enough  for  me 

15  to  say,  that  if,  in  any  part  of  this  their  grateful  occu- 
pation, if,  in  all  their  researches,  they  find  anything 
in  the  history  of  Massachusetts  or  New  England,  or 
in  the  proceedings  of  any  legislative  or  other  public 
body,  disloyal  to  the  Union,  speaking  slightly  of  its 

20  value,  proposing  to  break  it  up,  or  recommending  non- 
intercourse  with  neighboring  States,  on  account  of  differ- 
ence of  political  opinion,  then,  Sir,  I  give  them  all 
up  to  the  honorable  gentleman's  unrestrained  rebuke ; 
expecting,  however,  that  he  will  extend  his  buffetings  in 

25  like  manner  to  all  similar  proceedings,  wherever  else 
found.  .  .  . 

Mr.  President,  in  carrying  his  warfare,  such  as  it  is, 
into  New  England,  the  honorable  gentleman  all  along 
professes  to  be  acting  on  the  defensive.  He  chooses  to 

30  consider  me  as  having  assailed  South  Carolina,  and  in- 
sists that  he  comes  forth  only  as  her  champion,  and  in 
her  defence.  Sir,  I  do  not  admit  that  I  made  any  attack 
whatever  on  South  Carolina.  Nothing  like  it.  The  hon- 
orable member,  in  his  first  speech,  expressed  opinions,  in 

35  regard  to  revenue  and  some  other  topics,  which  I  heard 


Reply  to  Hayne.  217 

both  with  pain  and  with  surprise.  I  told  the  gentleman 
I  was  aware  that  such  sentiments  were  entertained  out 
of  the  government,  but  had  not  expected  to  find  them 
advanced  in  it ;  that  I  knew  there  were  persons  in  the 
South  who  speak  of  our  Union  with  indifference  or  doubt,  5 
taking  pains  to  magnify  its  evils,  and  to  say  nothing  of 
its  benefits ;  that  the  honorable  member  himself,  I  was 
sure,  could  never  be  one  of  these ;  and  I  regretted  the 
expression  of  such  opinions  as  he  had  avowed,  because  I 
thought  their  obvious  tendency  was  to  encourage  feelings  10 
of  disrespect  to  the  Union,  and  to  impair  its  strength. 
This,  Sir,  is  the  sum  and  substance  of  all  I  said  on  the 
subject.  And  this  constitutes  the  attack,  which  called 
on  the  chivalry  of  the  gentleman,  in  his  own  opinion,  to 
harry  us  with  such  a  foray  among  the  party  pamphlets  15 
and  party  proceedings  of  Massachusetts  !  If  he  means 
that  I  spoke  with  dissatisfaction  or  disrespect  of  the 
ebullitions  of  individuals  in  South  Carolina,  it  is  true. 
But  if  he  means  that  I  had  assailed  the  character  of  the 
State,  her  honor,  or  patriotism,  that  I  reflected  on  her  20 
history  or  her  conduct,  he  has  not  the  slightest  ground 
for  any  such  assumption.  I  did  not  even  refer,  1  think, 
in  my  observations,  to  any  collection  of  individuals.  I 
said  nothing  of  the  recent  conventions.  I  spoke  in  the 
most  guarded  and  careful  manner,  and  only  expressed  25 
my  regret  for  the  publication  of  opinions  which  I  pre- 
sumed the  honorable  member  disapproved  as  much  as 
myself.  In  this,  it  seems,  I  was  mistaken.  I  do  not 
remember  that  the  gentleman  has  disclaimed  any  senti- 
ment, or  any  opinion,  of  a  supposed  anti-union  tendency,  30 
which  on  all  or  any  of  the  recent  occasions  has  been  ex- 
pressed. The  whole  drift  of  his  speech  has  been  rather 
to  prove  that,  in  divers  times  and  manners,  sentiments 
equally  liable  to  my  objection  have  been  avowed  in  New 
England.  And  one  would  suppose  that  his  object,  in  35 


218  Webster. 

this  reference  to  Massachusetts,  was  to  find  a  precedent 
to  justify  proceedings  in  the  South,  were  it  not  for  the 
reproach  and  contumely  with  which  he  labors,  all  along, 
to  load  these  his  own  chosen  precedents.  By  way  of 

5  defending  South  Carolina  from  what  he  chooses  to  think 
an  attack  on  her,  he  first  quotes  the  example  of  Massa- 
chusetts, and  then  denounces  that  example  in  good  set 
terms.  This  twofold  purpose,  not  very  consistent,  one 
would  think,  with  itself,  was  exhibited  more  than  once 

10  in  the  course  of  his  speech.  He  referred,  for  instance, 
to  the  Hartford  Convention.  Did  he  do  this  for  author- 
ity, or  for  a  topic  of  reproach  ?  Apparently  for  both ; 
for  he  told  us  that  he  should  find  no  fault  with  the  mere 
fact  of  holding  such  a  convention,  and  considering  and 

15  discussing  such  questions  as  he  supposes  were  then  and 
there  discussed ;  but  what  rendered  it  obnoxious  was  its 
being  held  at  the  time,  and  under  the  circumstances  of 
the  country  then  existing.  We  were  in  a  war,  he  said, 
and  the  country  needed  all  our  aid ;  the  hand  of  govern- 

20  ment  required  to  be  strengthened,  not  weakened ;  and 
patriotism  should  have  postponed  such  proceedings  to 
another  day.  The  thing  itself,  then,  is  a  precedent ;  the 
time  and  manner  of  it  only,  a  subject  of  censure.  Now, 
Sir,  I  go  much  further  on  this  point  than  the  honorable 

25  member.  Supposing,  as  the  gentleman  seems  to  do,  that 
the  Hartford  Convention  assembled  for  any  such  purpose 
as  breaking  up  the  Union,  because  they  thought  uncon- 
stitutional laws  had  been  passed,  or  to  consult  on  that 
subject,  or  to  calculate  the  value  of  the  Union  ;  supposing 

30  this  to  be  their  purpose,  or  any  part  of  it,  then,  I  say, 
the  meeting  itself  was  disloyal,  and  was  obnoxious  to 
censure,  whether  held  in  time  of  peace  or  time  of  war, 
or  under  whatever  circumstances.  The  material  question 
is  the  object.  Is  dissolution  the  object  ?  If  it  be,  ex- 

35  ternal  circumstances  may  make  it  a  more  or  less  aggra- 


Reply  to  Hayne.  219 

vated  case,  but  cannot  affect  the  principle.  I  do  not  hold, 
therefore,  Sir,  that  the  Hartford  Convention  was  pardon- 
able, even  to  the  extent  of  the  gentleman's  admission,  if 
its  objects  were  really  such  as  have  been  imputed  to  it. 
Sir,  there  never  was  a  time,  under  any  degree  of  excite-  5 
ment,  in  which  the  Hartford  Convention,  or  any  other 
convention,  could  have  maintained  itself  one  moment  in 
New  England,  if  assembled  for  any  such  purpose  as  the 
gentleman  says  would  have  been  an  allowable  purpose. 
(To  hold  conventions  to  decide  constitutional  law !  to  try  10 
the  binding  validity  of  statutes,  by  votes  in  a  convention ! 
Sir,  the  Hartford  Convention,  I  presume,  would  not  desire 
that  the  honorable  gentleman  should  be  their  defender  or 
advocate,  if  he  puts  their  case  upon  such  untenable  and 
extravagant  groundsJ  15 

Then,  Sir,  the  gentleman  has  no  fault  to  find  with 
these  recently  promulgated  South  Carolina  opinions. 
And  certainly  he  need  have  none;  for  his  own  senti- 
ments as  now  advanced,  and  advanced  on  reflection, 
as  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  comprehend  them,  go  the  20 
full  length  of  all  these  opinions.  I  propose,  Sir,  to  say 
something  on  these,  and  to  consider  how  far  they  are 
just  and  constitutional.  Before  doing  that,  however, 
let  me  observe  that  the  eulogium  pronounced  by  the 
honorable  gentleman  on  the  character  of  the  State  of  25 
South  Carolina,  for  Revolutionary  and  other  merits, 
meets  my  hearty  concurrence.  I  shall  not  acknowledge 
that  the  honorable  member  goes  before  me  in  regard  for 
whatever  of  distinguished  talent,  or  distinguished  char- 
acter, South  Carolina  has  produced.  I  claim  part  of  the  30 
honor,  I  partake  in  the  pride,  of  her  great  names.  I 
claim  them  for  countrymen,  one  and  all.  The  Laurenses, 
the  Rutledges,  the  Pinckneys,  the  Sumters,  the  Marions, 
Americans  all,  whose  fame  is  no  more  to  be  hemmed  in 
by  State  lines  than  their  talents  and  patriotism  were  36 


220  Webster. 

capable  of  being  circumscribed  within  the  same  narrow 
limits.  In  their  day  and  generation  they  served  and 
honored  the  country,  and  the  whole  country ;  and  their 
renown  is  of  the  treasures  of  the  whole  country.  Him 

5  whose  honored  name  the  gentleman  himself  bears,  —  does 
he  esteem  me  less  capable  of  gratitude  for  his  patriotism, 
or  sympathy  for  his  sufferings,  than  if  his  eyes  had  first 
opened  upon  the  light  of  Massachusetts  instead  of  South 
Carolina?  Sir,  does  he  suppose  it  in  his  power  to  ex- 

10  hibit  a  Carolina  name  so  bright  as  to  produce  envy  in 
my  bosom  ?  No,  Sir  ;  increased  gratification  and  delight 
rather.  I  thank  God  that,  if  I  am  gifted  with  little  of 
the  spirit  which  is  able  to  raise  mortals  to  the  skies, 
I  have  yet  none,  as  I  trust,  of  that  .other  spirit,  which 

15  would  drag  angels  down.  When  I  shall  be  found,  Sir, 
in  my  place  here  in  the  Senate,  or  elsewhere,  to  sneer  at 
public  merit,  because  it  happens  to  spring  up  beyond  the 
little  limits  of  my  own  State  or  neighborhood ;  when  I 
refuse,  for  any  such  cause,  or  for  any  cause,  the  homage 

20  due  to  American  talent,  to  elevated  patriotism,  to  sincere 
devotion  to  liberty  and  the  country ;  or,  if  I  see  an 
uncommon  endowment  of  Heaven,  if  I  see  extraordinary 
capacity  and  virtue,  in  any  son  of  the  South,  and  if, 
moved  by  local  prejudice,  or  gangrened  by  State  jealousy, 

25  I  get  up  here  to  abate  the  tithe  of  a  hair  from  his  just 
character  and  just  fame,  may  my  tongue  cleave  to  the 
roof  of  my  mouth  ! 

Sir,  let   me   recur  to   pleasing  recollections;   let  me 
indulge  in  refreshing  remembrance  of  the  past ;  —  let  me 

30  remind  you  that  in  early  times  no  States  cherished 
greater  harmony,  both  of  principle  and  feeling,  than 
Massachusetts  and  South  Carolina.  Would  to  God  that 
harmony  might  again  return !  Shoulder  to  shoulder 
they  went  through  the  Revolution,  hand  in  hand  they 

35  stood  round  the  administration  of  Washington,  and  felt 


Reply  to  Hayne.  221 

his  own  great  arm  lean  on  them  for  support.  Unkind 
feeling,  if  it  exist,  alienation  and  distrust  are  the  growth, 
unnatural  to  such  soils,  of  false  principles  since  sown. 
They  are  weeds,  the  seeds  of  which  that  same  great  arm 
never  scattered.  5 

Mr.  President,  I  shall  enter  on  no  encomium  upon 
Massachusetts;  she  needs  none.  There  she  is,  behold 
her,  and  judge  for  yourselves.  There  is  her  history; 
the  world  knows  it  by  heart.  The  past,  at  least,  is 
secure.  There  is  Boston,  and  Concord,  and  Lexington,  10 
and  Bunker  Hill ;  and  there  they  will  remain  forever. 
The  bones  of  her  sons,  falling  in  the  great  struggle  for 
Independence,  now  lie  mingled  with  the  soil  of  every 
State  from  New  England  to  Georgia ;  and  there  they 
will  lie  forever.  And,  Sir,  where  American  Liberty  15 
raised  its  first  voice,  and  where  its  youth  was  nurtured 
and  sustained,  there  it  still  lives  in  the  strength  of  its 
manhood  and  full  of  its  original  spirit.  If  discord  and 
disunion  shall  wound  it ;  if  party  strife  and  blind  ambi- 
tion shall  hawk  at  and  tear  it ;  if  folly  and  madness,  if  20 
uneasiness  under  salutary  and  necessary  restraint,  shall 
succeed  to  separate  it  from  that  Union  by  which  alone 
its  existence  is  made  sure ;  it  will  stand,  in  the  end,  by  the 
side  of  that  cradle  in  which  its  infancy  was  rocked ;  it 
will  stretch  forth  its  arm  with  whatever  of  vigor  it  may  25 
still  retain,  over  the  friends  who  gather  round  it ;  and  it 
will  fall  at  last,  if  fall  it  must,  amidst  the  proudest 
monuments  of  its  ojjm^lef^^aftd-  on  the  very  spot  of 
its  origin.  ^£^-A^/v  * 

There  yet  Remains  to  be  performed,  Mr.  President,  by  30 
far  the  most  grave  and  important  duty  which  I  feel  to 
be  devolved  on  me  by  this  occasion.  It  is  to  state,  and 
to  defend,  what  I  conceive  to  be  the  true  principles  of 
the  Constitution  under  which  we  are  here  assembled.  I 
might  well  have  desired  that  so  weighty  a  task  should  35 


222  Webster. 

have  fallen  into  other  and  abler  hands.  I  could  have 
wished  that  it  should  have  been  executed  by  those  whose 
character  and  experience  give  weight  and  influence  to 
their  opinions  such  as  cannot  possibly  belong  to  mine. 
5  But,  Sir,  I  have  met  the  occasion,  not  sought  it ;  and  I 
shall  proceed  to  state  my  own  sentiments,  without  chal- 
lenging for  them  any  particular  regard,  with  studied 
plainness,  and  as  much  precision  as  possible. 

I  understand   the   honorable   gentleman   from    South 

10  Carolina  to  maintain  that   it   is   a   right  of  the   State 

legislatures   to    interfere,  whenever   in   their   judgment 

this  government  transcends  its  constitutional  limits,  and 

to  arrest  the  operation  of  its  laws. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain  this  right,  as  a  right 
,  15  existing  under  the  Constitution)  not  as  a  right  to  over- 
throw  it  on  the  ground  of  extreme  necessity,  such  as 
would  justify  violent  revolution. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain  an  authority,  on  the 
part  of  the  States,  thus  to  interfere  for  the  purpose  of 

;20  correcting  the  exercise  of  power  by  the  general  govern- 
ment, of  checking  it,  and  of  compelling  it  to  conform  to 
their  opinion  of  the  extent  of  its  powers. 

I  understand  him  to  maintain  that  the  ultimate  power 
of  judging  of  the  constitutional  extent  of  its  own  author- 

425  ity  is  not  lodged  exclusively  in  the  general  government, 
or  any  branch  of  it ;  but  that,  on  the  contrary,  the 
States  may  lawfully  decide  for  themselves,  and  each 
State  for  itself,  whether,  in  a  given  case,  the  act  of  the 
general  government  transcends  its  power. 

30  I  understand  him  to  insist  that,  if  the  exigency 
of  the  case,  in  the  opinion  of  any  State  government, 
require  it,  such  State  government  may,  by  its  own 
sovereign  authority,  annul  an  act  of  the  general  gov- 
ernment which  it  deems  plainly  and  palpably  unconsti- 

35  tutional. 


Reply  to  Hayne.  223 

This  is  the  sum  of  what  I  understand  from  him  to  be 
the  South  Carolina  doctrine  and  the  doctrine  which  he 
maintains.  I  propose  to  consider  it,  and  compare  it  with 
the  Constitution.  Allow  me  to  say,  as  a  preliminary 
remark,  that  I  call  this  the  South  Carolina  doctrine  only  6 
because  the  gentleman  himself  has  so  denominated  it.  I 
do  not  feel  at  liberty  to  say  that  South  Carolina,  as  a 
State,  has  ever  advanced  these  sentiments.  I  hope  she 
has  not,  and  never  may.  That  a  great  majority  of  her 
people  are  opposed  to  the  tariff  laws,  is  doubtless  true.  10 
That  a  majority,  somewhat  less  than  that  just  men- 
tioned, conscientiously  believe  these  laws  unconstitu- 
tional, may  probably  also  be  true.  But,  that  any 
majority  holds  to  the  right  of  direct  State  interfer- 
ence at  State  discretion,  —  the  right  of  nullifying  acts  of  15 
Congress  by  acts  of  State  legislation,  —  is  more  than  I 
know,  and  what  I  shall  be  slow  to  believe. 

That  there  are  individuals  besides  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman who  do  maintain  these  opinions,  is  quite  certain. 
I  recollect  the  recent  expression  of  a  sentiment  which  20 
circumstances  attending  its  utterance  and  publication 
justify  us  in  supposing  was  not  unpremeditated,  "The 
sovereignty  of  the  State  —  never  to  be  controlled,  con- 
strued, or  decided  on,  but  by  her  own  feelings  of  honor- 
able justice."  25 

[Mr.  Hayne  here  rose  and  said  that,  for  the  purpose  of  being 
clearly  understood,  he  would  state  that  his  proposition  was  in  the 
words  of  the  Virginia  resolution  as  follows :  — 

"  That  this  assembly  doth  explicitly  and  peremptorily  declare, 
that  it  views  the  powers  of  the  federal  government,  as  resulting  30 
from  the  compact  to  which  the  States  are  parties,  as  limited  by  the 
plain  sense  and  intention  of  the  instrument  constituting  that  com- 
pact, as  no  farther  valid  than  they  are  authorized  by  the  grants 
enumerated  in  that  compact  ;  and  that,  in  case  of  a  deliberate, 
palpable,  and  dangerous  exercise  of  other  powers,  not  granted  by  35 
the  said  compact,  the  States  who  are  parties  thereto  have  the 


224  Webster. 

right,  and  are  in  duty  bound,  to  interpose,  for  arresting  the  prog- 
ress of  the  evil,  and  for  maintaining  within  their  respective  limits 
the  authorities,  rights,  and  liberties  appertaining  to  them."] 

Mr.  Webster  resumed :  — 

5  I  am  quite  aware,  Mr.  President,  of  the  existence  of 
the  resolution  which  the  gentleman  read,  and  has  now 
repeated,  and  that  he  relies  on  it  as  his  authority.  I 
know  the  source,  too,  from  which  it  is  understood  to  have 
proceeded.  I  need  not  say  that  I  have  much  respect  for 

10  the  constitutional  opinions  of  Mr.  Madison ;  they  would 
weigh  greatly  with  me  always.  But,  before  the  authority 
of  his  opinion  be  vouched  for  the  gentleman's  proposi- 
tion, it  will  be  proper  to  consider  what  is  the  fair  inter- 
pretation of  that  resolution  to  which  Mr.  Madison  is 

15  understood  to  have  given  his  sanction.  As  the  gentle- 
man construes  it,  it  is  an  authority  for  him.  Possibly  he 
may  not  have  adopted  the  right  construction.  That  reso- 
lution declares,  that,  in  the  case  of  the  dangerous  exercise 
of  powers  not  granted  by  the  general  government,  the 

20  States  may  interpose  to  arrest  the  progress  of  the  evil. 
But  how  interpose,  and  what  does  this  declaration  pur- 
port ?  Does  it  mean  no  more  than  that  there  may  be 
extreme  cases,  in  which  the  people,  in  any  mode  of 
assembling,  may  resist  usurpation  and  relieve  them- 

25  selves  from  a  tyrannical  government  ?  No  one  will 
deny  this.  Such  resistance  is  not  only  acknowledged 
to  be  just  in  America,  but  in  England  also.  Blackstone 
admits  as  much,  in  the  theory,  and  practice,  too,  of  the 
English  constitution.  We,  Sir,  who  oppose  the  Carolina 

30  doctrine,  do  not  deny  that  the  people  may,  if  they 
choose,  throw  off  any  government,  when  it  becomes 
oppressive  and  intolerable,  and  erect  a  better  in  its 
stead.  We  all  know  that  civil  institutions  are  estab- 
lished for  the  public  benefit,  and  that  when  they  cease 


Reply  to  Hayne.  225 

to  answer  the  ends  of  their  existence  they  may  be 
changed.  But  I  do  not  understand  the  doctrine  now 
contended  for  to  be  that  which,  for  the  sake  of  dis- 
tinction, we  may  call  the  right  of  revolution.  I  under- 
stand the  gentleman  to  maintain  that,  without  revolution,  5 
without  civil  commotion,  without  rebellion,  a  remedy  for 
supposed  abuse  and  transgression  of  the  powers  of  the 
general  government  lies  in  a  direct  appeal  to  the  inter- 
ference of  the  State  governments. 

[Mr.  Hayne  here  rose  and  said  :  He  did  not  contend  for  the  10 
mere  right  of  revolution,  but  for  the  right  of  constitutional  resist- 
ance. What  he  maintained  was,  that,  in  case  of  a  plain,  pal- 
pable violation  of  the  Constitution  by  the  general  government, 
a  State  may  interpose;  and  that  this  interposition  is  constitu- 
tional.] 15 

Mr.  Webster  resumed : 

So,  Sir,  I  understood  the  gentleman,  and  am  happy  to 
find  that  I  did  not  misunderstand  him.     What  he  con- 
tends for  is,  that  it  is  constitutional  to  interrupt  the 
administration  of  the  Constitution  itself,  in  the  hands  20 
of  those  who  are  chosen  and  sworn  to  administer  it,  by 
the  direct  interference,  in  form  of  law,  of  the  States,  in 
virtue  of  their  sovereign  capacity.     The  inherent  right 
in  the  people  to  reform  their  government  I  do  not  deny ; 
and  they  have  another  right,  and  that  is,  to  resist  uncon-  25 
stitutional  laws,  without  overturning  the   government.         j 
It   is   no  doctrine   of  mine  that  unconstitutional  laws      y 
bind  the  people.  /  The  great  question  is,|^hose  preroga-   -^ 
tive  is  it  to  decide  on  the  constitutionality  or  unconsti- 
tutionally  of    the  laws  ?  1  On  that    the   main  debate  30 
hinges.     The   proposition  that,  in  case   of  a  supposed 
violation  of  the  Constitution  by  Congress,  the   States 
have  a  constitutional  right  to  interfere  and  annul  the 
law  of  Congress,  is  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman. 


226  Webster. 

I  do  not  admit  it.  If  the  gentleman  had  intended  no 
more  than  to  assert  the  right  of  revolution  for  jiistifiable 
cause,  he  would  have  said  only  what  all  agree  to.  But  I 
cannot  conceive  that  there  can  be  a  middle  course,  be- 

5  tween  submission  to  the  laws,  when  regularly  pro- 
nounced constitutional,  on  the  one  hand,  and  open 
resistance,  which  is  revolution  or  rebellion,  on  the  other. 
I  say,  the  right  of  a  State  to  annul  a  law  of  Congress 
cannot  be  maintained  but  on  the  ground  of  the  inalien- 
•10  able  right  of  man  to  resist  oppression;  that  is  to  say, 
upon  the  ground  of  revolution.  I  admit  that  there  is 
an  ultimate  violent  remedy,  above  the  Constitution  and 
in  defiance  of  the  Constitution,  which  may  be  resorted  to 
when  a  revolution  is  to  be  justified.  But  I  do  not  admit 

15  that,  under  the  Constitution  and  in  conformity  with  it, 
there  is  any  mode  in  which  a  State  government,  as  a 
member  of  the  Union,  can  interfere  and  stop  the  prog- 
ress of  the  general  government,  by  force  of  her  own 

\  tiaws,  under  any  circumstances  whatever. 
""20  This  leads  us  to  inquire  into  the  origin  of  this  gov- 
ernment and  the  source  of  its  power.  Whose  agent  is 
it  ?  Is  it  the  creature  of  tlje  State  legislatures,  or  the 
creature  of  the  people  ?  (jf  the  government  of  the 
United  States  be  the  agent  of  the  State  governments, 

25  then  they  may  control  it,  provided  they  can  agree  in 
the  manner  of  controlling  it ;  if  it  be  the  agent  of  the 
people,  then  the  people  alone  can  control  it,  restrain  it, 
modify,  or  reform  it.  It  is  observable  enough,  that  the 
doctrine  for  which  the  honorable  gentleman  contends 

30  leads  him  to  the  necessity  of  maintaining,  not  only  that 
this  general  government  is  the  creature  of  the  States,  but 
that  it  is  the  creature  of  each  of  the  States  severally,  so 
that  each  may  assert  the  power  for  itself  of  determining 
whether  it  acts  within  the  limits  of  its  authority.  It 

35  is  the  servant  of  four-and-twenty  masters,  of  different 


Reply  to  Hayne.  227 

wills  and  different  purposes,  and  yet  bound  to  obey 
all.  This  absurdity  (for  it  seems  no  less)  arises  from 
a  misconception  as  to  the  origin  of  this  government 
and  its  true  character.  It  is,  Sir,  the  people's  Consti- 
tution, the  people's  government,  made  for  the  people,  5 
made  by  the  people,  and  answerable  to  the  people. 
The  people  of  the  United  States  have  declared  that 
this  Constitution  shall  be  the  supreme  law.  We  must 
either  admit  the  proposition,  or  dispute  their  authority. 
The  States  are,  unquestionably,  sovereign,  so  far  as  10 
their  sovereignty  is  not  affected  by  this  supreme  law. 
But  the  State  legislatures,  as  political  bodies,  how- 
ever sovereign,  are  yet  not  sovereign  over  the  peo- 
ple. So  far  as  the  people  have  given  power  to  the 
general  government,  so  far  the  grant  is  unquestiona- 15 
bly  good,  and  the  government  holds  of  the  people,  and 
not  of  the  State  governments.  We  are  all  agents  of  the 
same  supreme  power,  the  people.  The  general  govern- 
ment and  the  State  governments  derive  their  authority 
from  the  same  source.  Neither  can,  in  relation  to  the  20 
other,  be  called  primary,  though  one  is  definite  and 
restricted,  and  the  other  general  and  residuary.  The 
national  government  possesses  those  powers  which  it 
can  be  shown  the  people  have  conferred  on  it,  and  no 
more.  All  the  rest  belongs  to  the  State  governments,  or  25 
to  the  people  themselves.  So  far  as  the  people  have 
restrained  State  sovereignty,  by  the  expression  of  their 
will,  in  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  so  far,  it 
must  be  admitted,  State  sovereignty  is  effectually  con- 
trolled. I  do  not  contend  that  it  is,  or  ought  to  be,  30 
controlled  farther.  The  sentiment  to  which  I  have 
referred  propounds  that  State  sovereignty  is  only  to  be 
controlled  by  its  own  "  feeling  of  justice  ;  "  that  is  to  say, 
it  is  not  to  be  controlled  at  all ;  for  one  who  is  to  fol- 
low his  own  feelings  is  under  no  legal  control.  Now,  35 


228  Webster. 

however  men  may  think  this  ought  to  be,  the  fact  is,  that 
the  people  of  the  United  States  have  chosen  to  impose 
control  on  State  sovereignties.  There  are  those,  doubt- 
less, who  wish  they  had  been  left  without  restraint ;  but 
5  the  Constitution  has  ordered  the  matter  differently.  To 
make  war,  for  instance,  is  an  exercise  of  sovereignty  ; 
but  the  Constitution  declares  that  no  State  shall  make 
war.  To  coin  money  is  another  exercise  of  sovereign 
power ;  but  no  State  is  at  liberty  to  coin  money.  ;  Again, 

10  the  Constitution  says  that  no  sovereign  State  shall  be  so 
sovereign  as  to  make  a  treaty.  These  prohibitions,  it 
must  be  confessed,  are  a  control  on  the  State  sovereignty 
of  South  Carolina,  as  well  as  of  the  other  States,  which 
does  not  arise  "  from  her  own  feelings  of  honorable  jus- 

15  tice."  Such  an  opinion,  therefore,  is  in  defiance  of  the 
plainest  provisions  of  the  Constitution. 

There  are  other  proceedings  of  public  bodies  which 
have  already  been  alluded  to,  and  to  which  I  refer  again, 
for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  more  fully  what  is  the 

20  length  and  breadth  of  that  doctrine  denominated  the 
Carolina  doctrine,  which  the  honorable  member  has  now 
stood  up  on  this  floor  to  maintain.  In  one  of  them  I 
find  it  resolved,  that  "  the  tariff  of  1828,  and  every  other 
tariff  designed  to  promote  one  branch  of  industry  at  the 

25  expense  of  others,  is  contrary  to  the  meaning  and  inten- 
tion of  the  federal  compact ;  and  such  a  dangerous, 
palpable,  and  deliberate  usurpation  of  power,  by  a 
determined  majority,  wielding  the  general  government 
beyond  the  limits  of  its  delegated  powers,  as  calls  upon 

30  States  which  compose  the  suffering  minority,  in  their 
sovereign  capacity,  to  exercise  the  powers  which,  as 
sovereigns,  necessarily  devolve  upon  them  when  their 
compact  is  violated." 

Observe,  Sir,  that  this  resolution  holds  the  tariff  of 

35  1828,  and  every  other  tariff  designed  to  promote  one 


Reply  to  Hayne.  229 

branch  of  industry  at  the  expense  of  another,  to  be 
such  a  dangerous,  palpable,  and  deliberate  usurpation 
of  power,  as  calls  upon  the  States,  in  their  sovereign 
capacity,  to  interfere  by  their  own  authority.  This 
denunciation,  Mr.  President,  you  will  please  to  observe,  5 
includes  our  old  tariff  of  1816,  as  well  as  all  others ; 
because  that  was  established  to  promote  the  interest 
of  the  manufacturers  of  cotton,  to  the  manifest  and 
admitted  injury  of  the  Calcutta  cotton  trade.  Observe, 
again,  that  all  the  qualifications  are  here  rehearsed  and  10 
charged  upon  the  tariff,  which  are  necessary  to  bring  the 
case  within  the  gentleman's  proposition.  The  tariff  is  a 
usurpation :  it  is  a  dangerous  usurpation ;  it  is  a  palpa- 
ble usurpation  ;  it  is  a  deliberate  usurpation.  It  is  such 
a  usurpation,  therefore,  as  calls  upon  the  States  to  exer- 15 
cise  their  right  of  interference.  Here  is  a  case,  then, 
within  the  gentleman's  principles,  and  all  his  qualifica- 
tions of  his  principles.  It  is  a  case  for  action.  The 
Constitution  is  plainly,  dangerously,  palpably,  and  delib- 
erately violated ;  and  the  States  must  interpose  their  20 
own  authority  to  arrest  the  law.  Let  us  suppose  the 
State  of  South  Carolina  to  express  this  same  opinion  by 
the  voice  of  her  legislature.  That  would  be  very  impos- 
ing ;  but  what  then  ?  Is  the  voice  of  one  State  conclu- 
sive ?  It  so  happens  that,  at  the  very  moment  when  25 
South  Carolina  resolves  that  the  tariff  laws  are  unconsti- 
tutional, Pennsylvania  and  Kentucky  resolve  exactly  the 
reverse.  They  hold  those  laws  to  be  both  highly  proper 
and  strictly  constitutional.  And  now,  Sir,  how  does  the 
honorable  member  propose  to  deal  with  this  case  ?  How  30 
does  he  relieve  us  from  this  difficulty,  upon  any  principle 
of  his  ?  His  construction  gets  us  into  it ;  how  does  he 
propose  to  get  us  out  ? 

In  Carolina,  the  tariff  is  a  palpable,  deliberate  usurpa- 
tion ;   Carolina,  therefore,  may  nullify  it,  and  refuse  to  3* 


230  Webster. 

pay  the  duties.  In  Pennsylvania,  it  is  both  clearly  con- 
stitutional and  highly  expedient;  and  there  the  duties 
are  to  be  paid.  And  yet  we  live  under  a  government  of 
uniform  laws,  and  under  a  Constitution,  too,  which  con- 

5  tains  an  express  provision,  as  it  happens,  that  all  duties 
shall  be  equal  in  all  the  States.  Does  not  this  approach 
absurdity  ? 

If  there  be  no  power  to  settle  such  questions,  inde- 
pendent of  either  of  the  States,  is  not  the  whole  Union 

10  a  rope  of  sand  ?  Are  we  not  thrown  back  again,  pre- 
cisely, upon  the  old  Confederation  ? 

It  is  too  plain  to  be  argued.  Four  and  twenty  inter- 
preters of  constitutional  law,  each  with  a  power  to 
decide  for  itself,  and  none  with  authority  to  bind  any- 

15  body  else,  and  this  constitutional  law  the  only  bond  of 
their  union !  What  is  such  a  state  of  things  but  a 
mere  connection  during  pleasure,  or,  to  use  the  phrase- 
ology of  the  times,  during  feeling  ?  And  that  feeling, 
too,  not  the  feeling  of  the  people,  who  established  the 

20  Constitution,  but  the  feeling  of  the  State  govern- 
ments. 

In  another  of  the  South  Carolina  addresses,  having 
premised  that  the  crisis  requires  "all  the  concentrated 
energy  of  passion,"  an  attitude  of  open  resistance  to  the 

25  laws  of  the  Union  is  advised.  Open  resistance  to  the 
laws,  then,  is  the  constitutional  remedy,  the  conservative 
power  of  the  State,  which  the  South  Carolina  doctrines 
teach  for  the  redress  of  political  evils,  real  or  imaginary. 
And  its  authors  further  say  that,  appealing  with  con- 

30  fidence  to  the  Constitution  itself,  to  justify  their  opinions, 
they  cannot  consent  to  try  their  accuracy  by  the  courts 
of  justice.  In  one  sense,  indeed,  Sir,  this  is  assuming  an 
attitude  of  open  resistance  in  favor  of  liberty.  But  what 
sort  of  liberty  ?  The  liberty  of  establishing  their  own 

35  opinions,  in  defiance  of  the  opinions  of  all  others ;  the 


Reply  to  Hayne.  231 

liberty  of  judging  and  of  deciding  exclusively  them- 
selves, in  a  matter  in  which  others  have  as  much  right 
to  judge  and  decide  as  they ;  the  liberty  of  placing  their 
own  opinions  above  the  judgment  of  all  others,  above  the 
laws,  and  above  the  Constitution.  This  is  their  liberty,  5 
and  this  is  the  fair  result  of  the  proposition  contended 
for  by  the  honorable  gentleman.  Or  it  may  be  more 
properly  said,  it  is  identical  with  it,  rather  than  a  result 
from  it.  ... 

And  now,  Sir,  what  I  have  first  to  say  on  this  subject  10 
is,  that  at  no  time,  and  under  no  circumstances,  has  New 
England,  or  any  State  in  New  England,  or  any  respect- 
able body  of  persons  in  New  England,  or  any  public  man 
of  standing  in  New  England,  put  forth  such  a  doctrine 
as  this  Carolina  doctrine.  15 

The  gentleman  has  found  no  case,  he  can  find  none,  to 
support  his  own  opinions  by  New  England  authority. 
New  England  has  studied  the  Constitution  in  other 
schools,  and  under  other  teachers.  She  looks  upon  it 
with  other  regards,  and  deems  more  highly  and  rever-  20 
ently  both  of  its  just  authority  and  its  utility  and  excel- 
lence. The  history  of  her  legislative  proceedings  may 
be  traced.  The  ephemeral  effusions  of  temporary  bodies, 
called  together  by  the  excitement  of  the  occasion,  may 
be  hunted  up  ;  they  have  been  hunted  up.  The  opinions  25 
and  votes  of  her  public  men,  in  and  out  of  Congress,  may 
be  explored.  It  will  all  be  in  vain.  The  Carolina  doc- 
trine can  derive  from  her  neither  countenance  nor  support. 
She  rejects  it  now ;  she  always  did  reject  it ;  and,  till 
she  loses  her  senses,  she  always  will  reject  it.  The  hon-  30 
orable  member  has  referred  to  expressions  on  the  subject 
of  the  embargo  law,  made  in  this  place  by  an  honorable 
and  venerable  gentleman  [Mr.  Hillhouse],  now  favoring 
us  with  his  presence.  He  quotes  that  distinguished  Sen- 
ator as  saying  that,  in  his  judgment,  the  embargo  law  36 


232  Webster. 

was  unconstitutional,  and  that,  therefore,  in  his  opinion, 
the  people  were  not  bound  to  obey  it.  That,  Sir,  is  per- 
fectly constitutional  language.  An  unconstitutional  law 
is  not  binding ;  but  then  it  does  not  rest  with  a  resolu- 
5  tion  or  a  law  of  a  State  legislature  to  decide  whether  an 
act  of  Congress  be,  or  be  not,  constitutional.  An  uncon- 
stitutional act  of  Congress  would  not  bind  the  people  of 
this  District;,  although  they  have  no  legislature  to  inter- 
fere in  their  behalf ;  and,  on  the  other  hand,  a  constitu- 

10  tional  law  of  Congress  does  bind  the  citizens  of  every 
State,  although  all  their  legislatures  should  undertake  to 
annul  it  by  act  or  resolution.  The  venerable  Connecticut 
Senator  is  a  constitutional  lawyer  of  sound  principles 
and  enlarged  knowledge ;  a  statesman  practised  and  ex- 

15  perienced,  bred  in  the  company  of  Washington,  and  hold- 
ing just  views  upon  the  nature  of  our  governments.  He 
believed  the  embargo  unconstitutional,  and  so  did  others ; 
but  what  then  ?  Who  did  he  suppose  was  to  decide  that 
question  ?  The  State  legislatures  ?  Certainly  not.  No 

20  such  sentiment  ever  escaped  his  lips. 

Let  us  follow  up,  Sir,  this  New  England  opposition  to 
the  embargo  laws  ;  let  us  trace  it  till  we  discern  the 
principle  which  controlled  and  governed  New  England 
throughout  the  whole  course  of  that  opposition.  We 

25  shall  then  see  what  similarity  there  is  between  the  New 
England  school  of  constitutional  opinions,  and  this  mod- 
ern Carolina  school.  .  .  .  No  doubt,  Sir,  a  great  ma- 
jority of  the  people  of  New  England  conscientiously 
believed  the  embargo  law  of  1807  unconstitutional;  as 

30  conscientiously,  certainly,  as  the  people  of  South  Carolina 
hold  that  opinion  of  the  tariff.  They  reasoned  thus : 
Congress  has  power  to  regulate  commerce ;  but  here  is 
a  law,  they  said,  stopping  all  commerce,  and  stopping  it 
indefinitely.  The  law  is  perpetual;  that  is,  it  is  not 

35  limited  in  point  of  time,  and  must,  of  course,  continue 


Reply  to  Hayne.  233 

^s 

until  it  shall  be  repealed  by  some  other  law.  It  is  as 
perpetual,  therefore,  as  the  law  against  treason  or  mur- 
der. Now,  is  this  regulating  commerce,  or  destroying  it  ? 
Is  it  guiding,  controlling,  giving  the  rule  to  commerce, 
as  a  subsisting  thing  ;  or  is  it  putting  an  end  to  it  alto-  5 
gether  ?  Nothing  is  more  certain  than  that  a  majority 
in  New  England  deemed  this  law  a  violation  of  the  Con- 
stitution. The  very  case  required  by  the  gentleman  to 
justify  State  interference  had  then  arisen.  Massachu- 
setts believed  this  law  to  be  "  a  deliberate,  palpable,  and  10 
dangerous  exercise  of  a  power  not  granted  by  the  Con- 
stitution." Deliberate  it  was,  for  it  was  long  continued ; 
palpable,  she  thought  it,  as  no  words  in  the  Constitution 
gave  the  power,  and  only  a  construction,  in  her  opinion 
most  violent,  raised  it ;  dangerous  it  was,  since  it  threat- 15 
ened  utter  ruin  to  her  most  important  interests.  Here, 
then,  was  a  Carolina  case.  How  did  Massachusetts  deal 
with  it  ?  It  was,  as  she  thought,  a  plain,  manifest,  pal- 
pable violation  of  the  Constitution,  and  it  brought  ruin 
to  her  doors.  Thousands  of  families,  and  hundreds  of  20 
thousands  of  individuals,  were  beggared  by  it.  While 
she  saw  and  felt  all  this,  she  saw  and  felt,  also,  that,  as 
a  measure  of  national  policy,  it  was  perfectly  futile ;  that 
the  country  was  no  way  benefited  by  that  which  caused 
so  much  individual  distress ;  that  it  was  efficient  only  25 
for  the  production  of  evil,  and  all  that  evil  inflicted  on 
ourselves.  In  such  a  case,  under  such  circumstances, 
how  did  Massachusetts  demean  herself  ?  Sir,  she  remon- 
strated, she  memorialized,  she  addressed  herself  to  the 
general  government,  not  exactly  "  with  the  concentrated  30 
energy  of  passion,"  but  with  her  own  strong  sense,  and 
the  energy  of  sober  conviction.  But  she  did  not  inter- 
pose the  arm  of  her  own  power  to  arrest  the  law,  and 
break  the  embargo.  Far  from  it.  Her  principles  bound 
her  to  two  things  ;  and  she  followed  her  principles,  lead  35 


234  Webster. 

where  they  might.  First,  to  submit  to  every  consti- 
tutional law  of  Congress;  and,  secondly,  i|  the  constitu- 
tional validity  of  the  law  be  doubted,  to  refer  that 
question  to  the  decision  of  the  proper  tribunals.  The 
5  first  principle  is  vain  and  ineffectual  without  the  second. 
A  majority  of  us  in  New  England  believed  the  embargo 
law  unconstitutional;  but  the  great  question  was,  and 
always  will  be,  in  such  cases,  Who  is  to  decide  this  ? 
Who  is  to  judge  between  the  people  and  the  government  ? 

10  And,  Sir,  it  is  quite  plain  that  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  confers  on  the  government  itself,  to  be 
exercised  by  its  appropriate  department,  and  under  its 
own  responsibility  to  the  people,  this  power  of  deciding 
ultimately  and  conclusively  upon  the  just  extent  of  its 

15  own  authority.  If  this  had  not  been  done,  we  should 
not  have  advanced  a  single  step  beyond  the  old  Confed- 
eration. 

Being  fully  of  opinion  that  the  embargo  law  was  un- 
constitutional, the  people  of  New  England  were  yet 

20  equally  clear  in  the  opinion  —  it  was  a  matter  they  did 
[not]  doubt  upon  —  that  the  question,  after  all,  must  be 
decided  by  the  judicial  tribunals  of  the  United  States. 
Before  those  tribunals,  therefore,  they  brought  the  ques- 
tion. Under  the  provisions  of  the  law  they  had  given 

25  bonds  to  millions  in  amount,  and  which  were  alleged 
to  be  forfeited.  They  suffered  the  bonds  to  be  sued,  and 
thus  raised  the  question.  In  the  old-fashioned  way  of 
settling  disputes  they  went  to  law.  The  case  came  to 
hearing  and  solemn  argument ;  and  he  who  espoused 

30  their  cause,  and  stood  up  for  them  against  the  validity 
of  the  embargo  act,  was  none  other  than  that  great  man 
of  whom  the  gentleman  has  made  honorable  mention, 
Samuel  Dexter.  He  was  then,  Sir,  in  the  fullness  of  his 
knowledge  and  the  maturity  of  his  strength.  He  had 

35  retired  from  long  and  distinguished  public  service  here, 


Reply  to  ffayne.  235 

to  the  renewed  pursuit  of  professional  duties  ;  carrying 
with  him  all  that  enlargement  and  expansion,  all  the 
new  strength  and  force,  which  an  acquaintance  with  the 
more  general  subjects  discussed  in  the  national  councils 
is  capable  of  adding  to  professional  attainment  in  a  mind  5 
of  true  greatness  and  comprehension.  He  was  a  lawyer, 
and  he  was  also  a  statesman.  .  .  .  He  put  into  his 
effort  his  whole  heart,  as  well  as  all  the  powers  of  his 
understanding;  for  he  had  avowed  in  the  most  public 
manner  his  entire  concurrence  with  his  neighbors  on  10 
the  point  in  dispute.  He  argued  the  cause ;  it  was  lost, 
and  New  England  submitted.  The  established  tribunals 
pronounced  the  law  constitutional,-  and  New  England 
acquiesced.  Now,  Sir,  is  not  this  the  exact  opposite  of 
the  doctrine  of  the  gentleman  from  South  Carolina  ?  15 
According  to  him,  instead  of  referring  to  the  judicial 
tribunals,  we  should  have  broken  up  the  embargo  by 
laws  of  our  own ;  we  should  have  repealed  it,  quoad 
New  England ;  for  we  had  a  strong,  palpable,  and  op- 
pressive case.  Sir,  we  believed  the  embargo  unconstitu-  20 
tional;  but  still  that  was  matter  of  opinion,  and  who 
was  to  decide  it  ?  We  thought  it  a  clear  case ;  but, 
nevertheless,  we  did  not  take  the  law  into  our  own 
hands,  because  we  did  not  wish  to  bring  about  a  revolu- 
tion, nor  to  break  up  the  Union ;  for  I  maintain  that,  25 
between  submission  to  the  decision  of  the  constituted 
tribunals  and  revolution,  or  disunion,  there  is  no  middle 
ground ;  there  is  no  ambiguous  condition,  half  allegiance 
and  half  rebellion.  And,  Sir,  how  futile,  how  very  futile, 
it  is  to  admit  the  right  of  State  interference,  and  then  30 
attempt  to  save  it  from  the  character  of  unlawful  resist- 
ance, by  adding  terms  of  qualification  to  the  causes  and 
occasions,  leaving  all  these  qualifications,  like  the  case 
itself,  in  the  discretion  of  the  State  governments.  It 
must  be  a  clear  case,  it  is  said,  a  deliberate  case,  a  pal-  35 


236  Webster. 

pable  case,  a  dangerous  case.  But  then  the  State  is  still 
left  at  liberty  to  decide  for  herself  what  is  clear,  what 
is  deliberate,  what  is  palpable,  what  is  dangerous.  Do 
adjectives  and  epithets  avail  anything  ? 

ir,  the  human  mind  is  so  constituted  that  the  merits 
of  both  sides  of  a  controversy  appear  very  clear  and  very 
palpable  to  those  who  respectively  espouse  them ;  and 
both  sides  usually  grow  clearer  as  the  controversy  ad- 
vances. South  Carolina  sees  unconstitutionality  in  the 

10  tariff ;  she  sees  oppression  there  also,  and  she  sees  dan- 
ger. Pennsylvania,  with  a  vision  not  less  sharp,  looks 
at  the  same  tariff,  and  sees  no  such  thing  in  it ;  she  sees 
it  all  constitutional,  all  useful,  all  safe.  The  faith  of 
South  Carolina  is  strengthened  by  opposition,  and  she 

15  now  not  only  sees,  but  resolves,  that  the  tariff  is  palpably 
unconstitutional,  oppressive,  and  dangerous  ;  but  Penn- 
sylvania, not  to  be  behind  her  neighbors,  and  equally 
willing  to  strengthen  her  own  faith  by  a  confident 

L^-^viv,  .  ^V     *it4,£ f/^+-<  ' 

asseveration,   resolves    also,  and   gives   to   every  warm 

20  affirmative  of  South  Carolina,  a  plain,  downright,  Penn- 
sylvania negative.  South  Carolina,  to  show  the  strength 
and  unity  of  her  opinion,  brings  her  assembly  to  a  unan- 
imity within  seven  voices  ;  Pennsylvania,  not  to  be  out- 
done in  this  respect  more  than  in  others,  reduces  her 

25  dissentient  fraction  to  a  single  vote.  Now,  Sir,  again  I 
ask  the  gentleman,  What  is  to  be  done  ?  Are  these  States 
both  right  ?  Is  he  bound  to  consider  them  both  right  ? 
If  not,  which  is  in  the  wrong  ?  or,  rather,  which  has  the 
best  right  to  decide  ?  And  if  he,  and  if  I,  are  not  to 

30  know  what  the  Constitution  means,  and  what  it  is,  till 
those  two  State  legislatures,  and  the  twenty-two  others, 
shall  agree  in  its  construction,  what  have  we  sworn  to 
when  we  have  sworn  to  maintain  it  ?  I  was  forcibly 
struck,  Sir,  with  one  reflection,  as  the  gentleman  went 

33  on  in  his  speech.     He  quoted  Mr.  Madison's  resolutions 


Reply  to  Hayne.  237 

to  prove  that  a  State  may  interfere,  in  a  case  of  deliber- 
ate, palpable*  and  dangerous  exercise  of  a  power  not 
granted.     The  honorable  member  supposes  the  tariff  law 
to  be  such  an  exercise  of  power ;  and  that,  consequently, 
a  case  has  arisen  in  which  the  State  may,  if  it  see  fit,  5 
interfere  by  its  own  law.     Now  it  so  happens,  neverthe- 
less, that  Mr.  Madison  deems  this  same  tariff  law  quite 
constitutional.     Instead  of  a  clear  and  palpable  violation, 
it  is,  in  his  judgment,  no  violation  at  all.     So,that,  while^  . 
they  use  his  authority  for  a  hypothetical  c*,se,  they  re- 10 
ject  it  in  the  very  case  before  them.     All  this,  Sir,  shows 
the  inherent  futility,  I  had  almost  used  a  stronger  word, 
of  conceding  this  power  of  interference  to  the  States, 
and  then  attempting  to  secure  it  from  abuse  by  imposing 
qualifications  of  which  the  States  themselves  are  to  judge.  15 
One  of  two  things  is  true ;  either  the  laws  of  the  Union 
are  beyond  the  discretion  and  beyond  the  control  of  the 
States,  or  else  we  have  no  Constitution  "of  general  gov- 
ernment, and  are  thrust  back  again  to  the  days  of  the 
Confederation.  .  20 

Let  me  here  say,  Sir,  that  if  tiae  gentleman's  doctrine 
had  been  received  'and  acted  upon  in  New  England,  in 
the  times  of  the  embargo  and  non-intercourse,  we  should 
probably  not  now  have  been  here.  The  government 
would  very  likely  have  gone  to  pieces,  and  crumbled  into  25 
dust.  No  stronger  case  can  ever  arise  than  existed 
under  those  laws  ;  no  States  can  ever  entertain  a  clearer 
conviction  than  the  New  England  States  then  entertained ; 
and  if  they  had  been  under  the  influence  of  that  heresy 
of  opinion,  as  I  must  call  it,  which  the  honorable  mem-  30 
ber  espouses,  this  Union  would,  in  all  probability,  have 
been  scattered  to  the  four  winds.  I  ask  the  gentleman, 
therefore,  to  apply  his  principles  to  that  case  ;  I  ask  him 
to  come  forth,  and  declare  whether,  in  his  opinion,  the 
New  England  States  would  have  been  justified  in  inter-  35 


238  Webster. 

fering  to  break  up  the  embargo  system  under  the  con- 
scientious opinions  which  they  held  upon  it*?  Had  they 
a  right  to  annul  that  law  ?  Does  he  admit  or  deny  ? 
If  that  which  is  thought  palpably  unconstitutional  in 

5  South  Carolina  justifies  that  State  in  arresting  the  prog- 
ress of  the  law,  tell  me  whether  that  which  was  thought 
palpably  unconstitutional  also  in  Massachusetts  would 
have  justified  her  in  doing  the  same  thing.  Sir,  I  deny 
the  whole  doctrine.  It  has  not  a  foot  of  ground  in  the 

10  Constitution  to  stand  on.  No  public  man  of  reputation 
ever  advanced  it  in  Massachusetts,  in  the  warmest  times, 
or  could  maintain  himself  upon  it  there  at  any  time. 

I  wish  now,  Sir,  to  make  a  remark  upon  the  Virginia 
resolutions  of  1798.     I  cannot   undertake   to   say  how 

15  these  resolutions  were  understood  by  those  who  passed 
them.  Their  language  is  not  a  little  indefinite.  In  the 
case  of  the  exercise  by  Congress  of  a  dangerous  power 
not  granted  to  them,  the  resolutions  assert  the  right,  on 
the  part  of  the  State,  to  interfere  and  arrest  the  progress 

20  of  the  evil.  This  is  susceptible  of  more  than  one  inter- 
pretation. It  may  mean  no  more  than  that  the  States 
may  interfere  by  complaint  and  remonstrance.;  or  by  pro- 
posing to  the  people  an  alteration  of  the  federal  Consti- 
tution. This  would  all  be  quite  unobjectionable.  Or  it 

25  may  be  that  no  more  is  meant  than  to_assert_lilie_general 
right  of  revolution,  as  against  all  governments,  in  cases 
of  intolerable  oppression.  This  no  one  doubts,  and  this, 
in  my  opinion,  is  all  that  he  who  framed  the  resolutions 
could  have  meant  by  it ;  for  I  shall  not  readily  believe 

30  that  he  was  ever  of  opinion  that  a  State,  under  the  Con- 
stitution and  in  conformity  with  it,  could,  upon  the 
ground  of  her  own  opinion  of  its  unconstitutionality, 
however  clear  and  palpable  she  might  think  the  case, 
annul  a  law  of  Congress  so  far  as  it  should  operate  on 

35  herself,  by  her  own  legislative  power. 


Reply  to  Hayne.  239 

I  must  now  beg  to  ask,  Sir,  whence  is  this  supposed 
right  of  the  States  derived?  Where  do  they  find  the 
power  to  interfere  with  the  laws  of  the  Union?,  Sir, 
the  opinion  which  the  honorable  gentleman  maintains 
is  a  notion  founded  in  a  total  misapprehension,  in  my  5 
judgment,  of  the  origin  of  this  government,  and  of  the 
foundation  on  which  it  stands.  I  hold  it  to  be  a  popular 
government,  erected  by  the  people ;  those  who  adminis- 
ter it,  responsible  to  the  people;  and  itself  capable  of 
being  amended  and  modified,  just  as  the  people  may  10 
choose  it  should  be.  It  is  as  popular,  just  as  truly 
emanating  from  the  people,  as  the  State  governments. 
It  is  created  for  one  purpose ;  the  State  governments  for 
another.  It  has  its  own  powers ;  they  have  theirs. 
There  is  no  more  authority  with  them  to  arrest  the  15 
operation  of  a  law  of  Congress,  than  with  Congress  to 
arrest  the  operation  of  their  laws.  We  are  here  to 
administer  a  Constitution  emanating  immediately  from 
the  people,  and  trusted  by  them  to  our  administration. 
It  is  not  the  creature  of  the  State  governments.  It  is  of  20 
no  moment  to  the  argument,  that  certain  acts  of  the 
State  legislatures  are  necessary  to  fill  our  seats  in  this 
body.  That  is  not  one  of  their  original  State  powers,  a 
part  of  the  sovereignty  of  the  State.  It  is  a  duty  which 
the  people,  by  the  Constitution  itself,  have  imposed  on  25 
the  State  legislatures,  and  which  they  might  have  left  to 
be  performed  elsewhere,  if  they  had  seen  fit/jSo  they 
have  left  the  choice  of  President  with  electors ;  but  all 
this  does  not  affect  the  proposition  that  this  whole  gov- 
ernment, President,  Senate,  and  House  of  Representa-  30 
tives,  is  a  popular  government.  It  leaves  it  still  all  its 
popular  character.  The  governor  of  a  State  (in  some  of 
the  States)  is  chosen,  not  directly  by  the  people,  but  by 
those  who  are  chosen  by  the  people  for  the  purpose  of 
performing,  among  other  duties,  that  of  electing  a  gov-  35 


240  Webster. 

ernor.  Is  the  government  of  the  State,  on  that  account, 
not  a  popular  government?  This  government,  Sir,  is 
the  independent  offspring  of  the  popular  will.  It  is 
not  the  creature  of  State  legislatures ;  nay  more,  if  the 

5  whole  truth  must  be  told,  the  people  brought  it  into 
existence,  established  it,  and  have  hitherto  supported  it, 
for  the  very  purpose,  amongst  others,  of  imposing  cer- 
tain salutary  restraints  on  State  sovereignties.  The 
States  cannot  now  make  war ;  they  cannot  contract 

10  alliances ;  they  cannot  make,  each  for  itself,  separate 
regulations  of  commerce ;  they  cannot  lay  imposts ;  they 
cannot  coin  money.  If  this  Constitution,  Sir,  be  the 
creature  of  State  legislatures,  it  must  be  admitted  that 
it  has  obtained  a  strange  control  over  the  volitions  of 

15  its  creators. 

/"The  people,  then,  Sir,  erected  this  government.  They 
gave  it  a  Constitution,  and  in  that  Constitution  they  have 
enumerated  the  powers  which  they  bestow  on  it.  They 
have  made  it  a  limited  government.  They  have  defined 

20  its  authority.  They  have  restrained  it  to  the  exercise  of 
such  powers  as  are  granted ;  and  all  others,  they  declare, 
are  reserved  to  the  States  or  the  people.  But,  Sir,  they 
have  not  stopped  here.  If  they  had,  they  would  have 
accomplished  but  half  their  work.  No  definition  can  be 

25  so  clear  as  to  avoid  possibility  of  doubt ;  no  limitation  so 
precise  as  to  exclude  all  uncertainty.  Who,  then,  shall 
construe  this  grant  of  the  people  ?  Who  shall  interpret 
their  will,  where  it  may  be  supposed  they  have  left  it 
doubtful  ?  With  whom  do  they  repose  this  ultimate 

30  right  of  deciding  on  the  poAvers  of  the  government  ? 
Sir,  they  have  settled  all  this  in  the  fullest  manner. 
They  have  left  it  with  the  government  itself  in  its 
appropriate  branches.  Sir,  the  very  chief  end,  the  main 
design  for  which  the  whole  Constitution  was  framed  and 

35  adopted,  was  to  establish  a  government  that  should  not 


Reply  to  Hayne.  241 

be  obliged  to  act  through  State  agency,  or  depend  on 
State  opinion  and  State  discretion.  The  people  had  had 
quite  enough  of  that  kind  of  government  under  the  Con- 
federation. Under  that  system  the  legal  action,  the 
application  of  law  to  individuals,  belonged  exclusively  5 
to  the  States.  Congress  could  only  recommend ;  their 
acts  were  not  of  binding  force,  till  the  States  had  adopted 
and  sanctioned  them.  Are  we  in  that  condition  still? 
Are  we  yet  at  the  mercy  of  State  discretion  and  State 
construction  ?  Sir,  if  we  are,  then  vain  will  be  our  at- 10 
tempt  to  maintain  the  Constitution  under  which  we 
sit. 

But,  Sir,  the  people  have  wisely  provided  in  the  Con- 
stitution itself  a  proper,  suitable  mode  and  tribunal  for 
settling  questions  of  constitutional  law.     There  are  in  15 
the   Constitution   grants    of    powers    to   Congress,   and 
restrictions  on  these  powers.     There  are,  also,  prohibi- 
tions on  the   States.     Some   authority  must,  therefore, 
necessarily  exist,  having  the  ultimate  jurisdiction  to  fix 
and  ascertain  the  interpretation  of  these  grants,  restric-  20 
tions,   and  prohibitions.      The   Constitution    has    itself 
pointed  out,  ordained,  and  established  that   authority. 
How  has  it  accomplished  this  great  and  essential  end  ? 
By  declaring,  Sir,  that  "  thfr  Constitution  and  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  made  in  pursuance  thereof  shall  be  the  25 
supreme  law  of  the  land,  anything  in  the,  Constitution  or 
laws  of  any  State  to  the  contrary  notwithstanding" 

This,  Sir,  was  the  first  great  step.  By  this  the  su- 
premacy of  the  Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United 
States  is  declared.  The  people  so  will  it.  No  State  law  30 
is  to  be  valid  which  comes  in  conflict  with  the  Constitu- 
tion or  any  law  of  the  United  States  passed  in  pursuance 
of  it.  But  who  shall  decide  this  question  of  interfer- 
ence ?  To  whom  lies  the  last  appeal  ?  This,  Sir,  the 
Constitution  itself  decides  also,  by  declaring,  "  that  the  35 


242  Webster. 

judicial  power  shall  extend  to  all  cases  arising  under  the 
Constitution  and  laws  of  the  United  States."  These  two 
provisions  cover  the  whole  ground.  They  are,  in  truth, 
the  keystone  of  the  arch!  With  these,  it  is  a  govern- 

5  ment ;  without  them  it  is  a  confederation.  In  pursuance 
of  these  clear  and  express  provisions,  Congress  estab- 
lished at  its  very  first  session,  in  the  judicial  act,  a  mode 
for  carrying  them  into  full  effect,  and  for  bringing  all 
questions  of  constitutional  power  to  the  final  decision  of 

10  the  Supreme  Court.  It  then,  Sir,  became  a  government. 
It  then  had  the  means  of  self-protection;  and,  but  for 
this,  it  would,  in  all  probability,  have  been  now  among 
things  which  are  past.  Having  constituted  the  govern- 
ment and  declared  its  powers,  the  people  have  further 

15  said  that,  since  somebody  must  decide  on  the  extent  of 
these  powers,  the  government  shall  itself  decide ;  subject 
always,  like  other  popular  governments,  to  its  responsi- 
bility to  the  people.  And  now,  Sir,  I  repeat,  how  is  it 
that  a  State  legislature  acquires  any  power  to  interfere  ? 

20  Who,  or  what,  gives  them  the  right  to  say  to  the  peo- 
ple, "  We,  who  are  your  agents  and  servants  for  one  pur- 
pose, will  undertake  to  decide  that  your  other  agents  and 
servants,  appointed  by  you  for  another  purpose,  have 
transcended  the  authority  you  gave  them !  "  The  reply 

25  would  be,  I  think,  not  impertinent,  —  "  Who  made  you 
a  judge  over  another's  servants  ?  To  their  own  masters 
they  stand  or  fall." 

Sir,  I  deny  this  power  of  State  legislatures  altogether. 
It  cannot  stand  the  test   of   examination.     Gentlemen 

30  may  say  that,  in  an  extreme  case,  a  State  government 
might  protect  the  people  from  intolerable  oppression. 
Sir,  in  such  a  case,  the  people  might  protect  themselves 
without  the  aid  of  the  State  governments.  Such  a  case 
warrants  revolution.  It  must  make,  when  it  comes,  a 

35  law  for  itself.     A  nullifying  act  of  a  State  legislature 


Reply  to  Hayne.  243 

cannot  alter  the  case,  nor  make  resistance  any  more  law- 
ful. In  maintaining  these  sentiments,  Sir,  I  am  but  as- 
serting the  rights  of  the  people.  I  state  what  they  have 
declared,  and  insist  on  their  right  to  declare  it.  They 
have  chosen  to  repose  this  power  in  the  general  govern-  5 
ment,  and  I  think  it  my  duty  to  support  it,  like  other 
constitutional  powers. 

For  myself,  Sir,  I  do  not  admit  the  jurisdiction  of 
South  Carolina,  or  any  other  State,  to  prescribe  my  con- 
stitutional duty  ;  or  to  settle,  between  me  and  the  people,  ic 
the  validity  of  laws  of  Congress,  for  which  I  have  voted. 
I  decline  her  umpirage.  I  have  not  sworn  to  support 
the  Constitution  according  to  her  construction  of  its 
clauses.  I  have  not  stipulated,  by  my  oath  of  office  or 
otherwise,  to  come  under  any  responsibility,  except  to  15 
the  people  and  those  whom  they  have  appointed  to  pass 
upon  the  question,  whether  laws  supported  by  my  votes 
conform  to  the  Constitution  of  the  country.  And,  Sir, 
if  we  look  to  the  general  nature  of  the  case,  could  any- 
thing have  been  more  preposterous  than  to  make  a  gov-  20 
eminent  for  the  whole  Union,  and  yet  leave  its  powers 
subject,  not  to  one  interpretation,  but  to  thirteen,  or 
twenty-four  interpretations  ?  Instead  of  one  tribunal, 
established  by  all,  responsible  to  all,  with  power  to  decide 
for  all,  shall  constitutional  questions  be  left  to  four  and  25 
twenty  popular  bodies,  each  at  liberty  to  decide  for  it- 
self, and  none  bound  to  respect  the  decisions  of  others  ; 
and  each  at  liberty,  too,  to  give  a  new  construction  on 
every  new  election  of  its  own  members  ?  Would  any- 
thing, with  such  a  principle  in  it,  or  rather  with  such  a  30 
destitution  of  all  principle,  be  fit  to  be  called  a  govern- 
ment ?  No,  Sir  ;  it  should  not  be  denominated  a  Consti- 
tution. It  should  be  called,  rather,  a  collection  of  topics 
for  everlasting  controversy ;  heads  of  debate  for  a  dispu- 
tatious people.  It  would  not  be  a  government.  It  would  35 


244  Webster. 

not  be  adequate  to  any  practical  good,  nor  fit  for  any 
country  to  live  under.  To  avoid  all  possibility  of  being 
misunderstood,  allow  me  to  repeat  again,  in  the  fullest- 
manner,  that  I  claim  no  powers  for  the  government  by 

5  forced  or  unfair  construction.  I  admit  that  it  is  a  gov- 
ernment of  strictly  limited  powers,  of  enumerated,  spe- 
cified, and  particularized  powers  ;  and  that  whatsoever  is 
not  granted  is  withheld.  But,  notwithstanding  all  this, 
and  however  the  grant  of  powers  may  be  expressed,  its 

10  limit  and  extent  may  yet,  in  some  cases,  admit  of  doubt ; 
and  the  general  government  would  be  good  for  nothing, 
it  would  be  incapable  of  long  existing,  if  some  mode  had 
not  been  provided  in  which  those  doubts,  as  they  should 
arise,  might  be  peaceably,  but  authoritatively  solved. 

15  And  now,  Mr.  President,  let  me  run  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman's doctrine  a  little  into  its  practical  application. 
Let  us  look  at  his  probable  modus  operandi.  If  a  thing 
can  be  done,  an  ingenious  man  can  tell  how  it  is  to  be 
done.  And  I  wish  to  be  informed  how  this  State  inter- 

20  ference  is  to  be  put  in  practice  without  violence,  blood- 
shed, and  rebellion.  We  will  take  the  existing  case  of 
the  tariff  law.  South  Carolina  is  said  to  have  made  up 
her  opinion  upon  it.  If  we  do  not  repeal  it  (as  we  prob- 
ably shall  not),  she  will  then  apply  to  the  case  the  rem- 

25  edy  of  her  doctrine.  She  will,  we  must  suppose,  pass  a 
law  of  her  legislature  declaring  the  several  acts  of  Con- 
gress, usually  called  the  tariff  laws,  null  and  void  so  far 
as  they  respect  South  Carolina  or  the  citizens  thereof. 
So  far,  all  is  a  paper  transaction,  and  easy  enough.  But 

30  the  collector  at  Charleston  is  collecting  the  duties  im- 
posed by  these  tariff  laws.  He,  therefore,  must  be 
stopped.  The  collector  will  seize  the  goods  if  the  tariff 
duties  are  not  paid.  The  State  authorities  will  under- 
take their  rescue  ;  the  marshal  with  his  posse  will  come 

35  to  the  collector's  aid ;  and  here  the  contest  begins.     The 


Reply  to  Hayne.  245 

militia  of  the  State  will  be  called  out  to  sustain  the  nul- 
lifying act.  They  will  march,  Sir,  under  a  very  gallant 
leader  ;  for  I  believe  the  honorable  member  himself  com- 
mands the  militia  of  that  part  of  the  State.  He  will 
raise  the  nullifying  act  on  his  standard,  and  spread  it  5 
out  as  his  banner.  It  will  have  a  preamble,  setting 
forth  that  the  tariff  laws  are  palpable,  deliberate,  and 
dangerous  violations  of  the  Constitution.  He  will  pro- 
ceed, with  this  banner  flying,  to  the  custom-house  in 

Charleston.  10 

"  All  the  while, 
Sonorous  metal  blowing  martial  sounds." 

Arrived  at  the  custom-house,  he  will  tell  the  collector 
that  he  must  collect  no  more  duties  under  any  of  the 
tariff  laws.     This  he  will  be  somewhat  puzzled  to  say,  by  15 
the  way,  with  a  grave   countenance,  considering  what 
hand  South  Carolina  herself  had  in  that  of  1816.     But, 
Sir,  the  collector  would  probably  not  desist  at  his  bid- 
ding.    He  would   show  him  the   law  of  Congress,  the 
treasury  instruction,  and  his   own  oath  of  office.     He  20 
would    say  he    should    perform    his   duty,   come  what 
come  might. 

Here  would  ensue  a  pause,  for  they  say  that  a  certain 
stillness  precedes  the  tempest.  The  trumpeter  would 
hold  his  breath  a  while,  and  before  all  this  military  26 
array  should  fall  on  the  custom-house,  collector,  clerks, 
and  all,  it  is  very  probable  some  of  those  composing  it 
would  request  of  their  gallant  commander-in-chief  to  be 
informed  a  little  upon  the  point  of  law ;  for  they  have, 
doubtless,  a  just  respect  for  his  opinions  as  a  lawyer,  as  30 
well  as  for  his  bravery  as  a  soldier.  They  know  he  has 
read  Blackstone  and  the  Constitution,  as  well  as  Turenne 
and  Vauban.  They  would  ask  him,  therefore,  some- 
thing concerning  their  rights  in  this  matter.  They 
would  inquire  whether  it  was  not  somewhat  dangerous  35 


246  Webster. 

to  resist  a  law  of  the  United  States.  What  would  "be 
the  nature  of  their  offence,  they  would  wish  to  learn,  if 
they  by  military  force  and  array  resisted  the  execution 
in  Carolina  of  a  law  of  the  United  States,  and  it  should 
5  turn  out,  after  all,  that  the  law  was  constitutional.  He 
would  answer,  of  course,  Treason.  No  lawyer  could 
give  any  other  answer.  John  Fries,  he  would  tell 
them,  had  learned  that  some  years  ago.  "  How  then," 
they  would  ask,  "  do  you  propose  to  defend  us  ?  We  are 

10  not  afraid  of  bullets,  but  treason  has  a  way  of  taking 
people  off  that  we  do  not  much  relish.  How  do  you 
propose  to  defend  us  ?  "  "  Look  at  my  floating  banner," 
he  would  reply ;  "  see  there  the  Nullifying  Law !  "  "  Is 
it  your  opinion,  gallant  commander,"  they  would  then 

is  say,  "  that,  if  we  should  be  indicted  for  treason,  that  same 
floating  banner  of  yours  would  make  a  good  plea  in 
bar  ?  "  "  South  Carolina  is  a  sovereign  State,"  he  would 
reply.  "That  is  true;  but  would  the  judge  admit  our 
plea  ? "  "  These  tariff  laws,"  he  would  repeat,  "  are 

20  unconstitutional,  palpably,  deliberately,  dangerously." 
"  That  all  may  be  so ;  but  if  the  tribunal  should  not 
happen  to  be  of  that  opinion,  shall  we  swing  for  it? 
We  are  ready  to  die  for  our  country,  but  it  us  rather 
an  awkward  business,  this  dying  without  touching  the 

25  ground !  After  all,  that  is  a  sort  of  hemp  tax,  worse 
than  any  part  of  the  tariff." 

Mr.  President,  the  honorable  gentleman  would  be  in  a 
dilemma  like  that  of  another  great  general.  He  would 
have  a  knot  before  him  which  he  could  not  untie.  He 

30  must  cut  it  with  his  sword.  He  must  say  to  his  fol- 
lowers, "  Defend  yourselves  with  your  bayonets !  "  And 
this  is  war,  —  civil  war. 

Direct  collision,  therefore,  between  force  and  force  is 
the  unavoidable  result  of  that  remedy  for  the  revision  of 

35  unconstitutional  laws  which  the  gentleman  contends  for. 


Reply  to  Hayne.  247 

It  must  happen  in  the  very  first  case  to  which  it  is 
applied.  Is  not  this  the  plain  result  ?  To  resist  by 
force  the  execution  of  a  law,  generally  is  treason.  Can 
the  courts  of  the  United  States  take  notice  of  the  indul- 
gence of  a  State  to  commit  treason  ?  The  common  say-  5 
ing,  that  a  State  cannot  commit  treason  herself,  is 
nothing  to  the  purpose.  Can  she  authorize  others  to 
do  it  ?  If  John  Fries  had  produced  an  act  of  Pennsyl- 
vania annulling  the  law  of  Congress,  would  it  have 
helped  his  case  ?  Talk  about  it  as  we  will,  these  doc- 10 
trines  go  the  length  of  revolution.  They  are  incompati- 
ble with  any  peaceable  administration  of  the  government. 
They  lead  directly  to  disunion  and  civil  commotion ;  and 
therefore  it  is,  that  at  their  commencement,  when  they 
are  first  found  to  be  maintained  by  respectable  men,  and  15 
in  a  tangible  form,  I  enter  my  public  protest  against 
them  all. 

The  honorable  gentleman  argues  that,  if  this  govern- 
ment be  the  sole  judge  of  the  extent  of  its  own  powers, 
whether  that  right  of  judging  be  in  Congress  or  the  20 
Supreme  Court,  it  equally  subverts  State  sovereignty. 
This  the  gentleman  sees,  or  thinks  he  sees,  although  he 
cannot  perceive  how  the  right  of  judging  in  this  matter, 
if  left  to  the  exercise  of  State  legislatures,  has  any  ten- 
dency to  subvert  the  government  of  the  Union.     The  25 
gentleman's  opinion  may  be  that  the  right  ought  not  to 
have  been  lodged  with  the  general  government ;  he  may 
like  better  such  a  Constitution  as  we  should  have  under 
the  right  of  State  interference ;  but  I  ask  him  to  meet 
me  on  the  plain  matter  of  fact.     I  ask  him  to  meet  me  30 
on  the  Constitution  itself.     I  ask  him  if  the  power  is  not 
found  there  —  clearly  and  visibly  found  there  ? 

But,  Sir,  what  is  this  danger,  and  what  the  grounds 
of  it  ?  Let  it  be  remembered  that  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  is  not  unalterable.  It  is  to  continue  35 


248  Webster. 

in  its  present  form  no  longer  than  the  people  who  estab- 
lished it  shall  choose  to  continue  it.  If  they  shall  become 
convinced  that  they  have  made  an  injudicious  or  inexpe- 
dient partition  and  distribution  of  power  between  the 
5  State  governments  and  the  general  government,  they  can 
alter  that  distribution  at  will. 

If  anything  be   found   in  the   national   Constitution, 
either  by  original  provision  or  subsequent  interpretation, 
which  ought  not  to  be  in  it,  the  people  know  how  to  get 
10  rid  of  it.     If  any  construction  unacceptable  to  them  be 
established,  so  as  to  become  practically  a  part  of  the 
Constitution,  they  will  amend  it  at  their  own  sovereign 
pleasure.     But  while  the  people  choose  to  maintain  it  as 
it  is,  while  they  are  satisfied  with  it,  and  refuse  to  change 
15  it,  who  has  given,  or  who  can  give,  to  the  State  legisla- 
tures a  right  to  alter  it  either  by  interference,  construc- 
tion, or  otherwise  ?     Gentlemen  do  not  seem  to  recollect 
that  the  people  have  any  power  to  do  anything  for  them- 
selves.    They  imagine  there  is  no  safety  for  them,  any 
20  longer  than  they  are   under  the  close  guardianship  of 
the  State  legislatures.     Sir,  the  people  have  not  trusted 
their  safety,  in  regard  to  the  general  Constitution,  to 
these  hands.     They  have  required  other  security,   and 
taken  other  bonds.     They  have  chosen  to  trust  them- 
25  selves,  first,  to  the  plain  words  of  the  instrument,  and  to 
such  construction   as   the  government   itself,  in  doubt- 
ful cases,  should  put  on  its  own  powers,  under  its  oaths 
of  office,  and  subject  to  its  responsibility  to  them ;  just 
as  the  people  of  a  State  trust  their  own  State  govern- 
so  ments  with  a  similar  power.     Secondly,  they  have  re- 
posed their  trust  in  the  efficacy  of  frequent  elections, 
and  in  their  own  power  to  remove  their  own  servants 
and    agents   whenever  they   see    cause.     Thirdly,   they 
have   reposed  trust  in  the    judicial    power,   which,   in 
35  order  that  it  might  be  trustworthy,  they  have  made  as 


Reply  to  Hayne.  249 

respectable,  as  disinterested,  and  as  independent  as  was 
practicable.  Fourthly,  they  have  seen  fit  to  rely,  in  case 
of  necessity  or  high  expediency,  on  their  known  and 
admitted  power  to  alter  or  amend  the  Constitution  peace- 
ably and  quietly,  whenever  experience  shall  point  out  5 
defects  or  imperfections.  And,  finally,  the  people  of  the 
United  States  have  at  no  time,  in  no  way,  directly  or 
indirectly,  authorized  any  State  legislature  to  construe 
or  interpret  their  high  instrument  of  government ;  much 
less  to  interfere  by  their  own  power  to  arrest  its  course  10 
and  operation. 

If,  Sir,  the  people  in  these  respects  had  done  otherwise 
than  they  have  done,  their  Constitution  could  neither  have 
been  preserved,  nor  would  it  have  been  worth  preserving. 
And  if  its  plain  provisions  shall  now  be  disregarded,  and  15 
these  new  doctrines  interpolated  in  it,  it  will  become  as 
feeble  and  helpless  a  being  as  its  enemies,  whether  early 
or  more  recent,  could  possibly  desire.  It  will  exist  in 
every  State  but  as  a  poor  dependant  on  State  permission. 
It  must  borrow  leave  to  be ;  and  will  be  no  longer  than  20 
State  pleasure,  or  State  discretion,  sees  fit  to  grant  the 
indulgence  and  to  prolong  its  poor  existence. 

But,  Sir,  although  there  are  fears,  there  are  hopes  also. 
The  people  have  preserved  this,  their  own  chosen  Con- 
stitution, for  forty  years,  and  have  seen  their  happi-  25 
ness,  prosperity,  and  renown  grow  with  its  growth,  and 
strengthen  with  its  strength.  They  are  now,  generally, 
strongly  attached  to  it.  Overthrown  by  direct  assault,  it 
cannot  be ;  evaded,  undermined,  nullified,  it  will  not  be, 
if  we,  and  those  who  shall  succeed  us  here  as  agents  30 
and  representatives  of  the  people,  shall  conscientiously 
and  vigilantly  discharge  the  two  great  branches  of 
our  public  trust,  faithfully  to  preserve,  and  wisely  to 
administer  it. 

Mr.  President,  I  have  thus  stated  the  reasons  of  my  35 


250  Webster. 

dissent  to  the  doctrines  which  have  been  advanced  and 
maintained.  I  am  conscious  of  having  detained  you  and 
the  Senate  much  too  long.  I  was  drawn  into  the  debate 
with  no  previous  deliberation  such  as  is  suited  to  the 

5  discussion  of  so  grave  and  important  a  subject.  But  it 
is  a  subject  of  which  my  heart  is  full,  and  I  have  not 
been  willing  to  suppress  the  utterance  of  its  spontaneous 
sentiments.  I  cannot,  even  now,  persuade  myself  to 
relinquish  it  without  expressing  once  more  my  deep 

10  conviction  that,  since  it  respects  nothing  less  than  the 
Union  of  the  States,  it  is  of  most  vital  and  essential 
importance  to  the  public  happiness.  I  profess,  Sir,  in 
my  career  hitherto  to  have  kept  steadily  in  view  the 
prosperity  and  honor  of  the  whole  country,  and  the  pres- 

15  ervation  of  our  Federal  Union.  It  is  to  that  Union  we 
owe  our  safety  at  home,  and  our  consideration  and  dig- 
nity abroad.  It  is  to  that  Union  that  we  are  chiefly 
indebted  for  whatever  makes  us  most  proud  of  our  coun- 
try. That  Union  we  reached  only  by  the  discipline  of 

20  our  virtues  in  the  severe  school  of  adversity.  It  had  its 
origin  in  the  necessities  of  disordered  finance,  prostrate 
commerce,  and  ruined  credit.  Under  its  benign  influ- 
ences, these  great  interests  immediately  awoke  as  from 
the  dead,  and  sprang  forth  with  newness  of  life.  Every 

25  year  of  its  duration  has  teemed  with  fresh  proofs  of  its 
utility  and  its  blessings  ;  and  although  our  territory  has 
stretched  out  wider  and  wider,  and  our  population  spread 
farther  and  farther,  they  have  not  outrun  its  protection 
or  its  benefits.  It  has  been  to  us  all  a  copious  fountain 

30  of  national,  social,  and  personal  happiness. 

I  have  not  allowed  myself,  Sir,  to  look  beyond  the 
Union  to  see  what  might  lie  hidden  in  the  dark  recess 
behind.  I  have  not  coolly  weighed  the  chances  of  pre- 
serving liberty,  when  the  bonds  that  unite  us  together 

35  shall  be  broken  asunder.     I  have  not  accustomed  myself 


Reply  to  Hayne. 

to  hang  over  the  precipice  of  disunion,  to  see  whether, 
with  my  short  sight,  I  can  fathom  the  depth  of  the  abyss 
below ;  nor  could  I  regard  him  as  a  safe  counsellor  in  the 
affairs  of  this  government,  whose  thoughts  should  be 
mainly  bent  on  considering,  not  how  the  Union  should  5 
be  best  preserved,  but  how  tolerable  might  be  the  condi- 
tion of  the  people  when  it  should  be  broken  up  and 
destroyed.  While  the  Union  lasts,  we  have  high,  excit- 
ing, gratifying  prospects  spread  out  before  us,  —  for  us  and 
our  children.  Beyond  that,  I  seek  not  to  penetrate  the  10 
veil.  God  grant  that,  in  my  day,  at  least,  that  curtain 
may  not  rise  J  God  grant  that  on  my  vision  never  may 
be  opened  what  lies  behind !  When  my  eyes  shall  be 
turned  to  behold  for  the  last  time  the  sun  in  heaven, 
may  I  not  see  him  shining  on  the  broken  and  dishonored  15 
fragments  of  a  once  glorious  Union;  on  States  dissev- 
ered, discordant,  belligerent;  on  a  land  rent  with  civil 
feuds,  or  drenched,  it  may  be,  in  fraternal  blood !  Let 
their  last  feeble  and  lingering  glance  rather  behold  the 
gorgeous  ensign  of  the  Republic,  now  known  and  hon-  20 
ored  throughout  the  earth,  still  full  high  advanced,  its 
arms  and  trophies  streaming  in  their  original  lustre,  not 
a  stripe  erased  or  polluted,  nor  a  single  star  obscured ; 
bearing  for  its  motto,  no  such  miserable  interrogatory  as 
"  What  is  all  this  worth  ? "  nor  those  other  words  of  25 
delusion  and  folly,  "  Liberty  first,  and  Union  after- 
wards ; "  but  everywhere,  spread  all  over  in  characters  of 
living  light,  blazing  on  all  its  ample  folds,  as  they  float 
over  the  sea  and  over  the  land  and  in  every  wind  under 
the  whole  heavens,  that  other  sentiment,  dear  to  every  30 
true  American  heart,  —  Liberty  and  Union,  now  and  for- 
ever, one  and  inseparable ! 


DANIEL   WEBSTER. 


DANIEL  WEBSTER,  statesman  and  orator,  was  born  in  Salis- 
bury, N.  H.,  Jan.  18,  1782.  His  father,  a  sturdy  frontiersman, 
soldier,  farmer,  member  of  the  legislature,  and  county  judge,  was, 
after  the  manner  of  his  kind,  always  struggling  with  poverty,  and 
handicapped  with  a  sense  of  the  deficiencies  of  his  early  educa- 
tion. He  purposed  that  Daniel,  his  youngest  son,  a  delicate  lad 
and  little  fitted  for  the  heavy  tasks  of  a  farmer's  life,  should  not 
be  so  handicapped.  Through  struggles  and  self-denial  by  no 
means  rare  in  such  cases,  a  way  was  made  to  send  him  to  college. 
After  an  exceedingly  brief  and  fragmentary  preparation,  he  en- 
tered Dartmouth  College  in  1797,  and  was  graduated  in  1801,  at 
the  age  of  nineteen.  He  turned  at  once  to  the  study  of  law, 
supporting  himself  meanwhile,  and  assisting  his  elder  brother  in 
college,  by  copying,  teaching,  and  other  miscellaneous  labors. 
Admitted  to  the  bar  in  1805,  his  remarkable  abilities  soon  gained 
him  recognition,  and  the  field  of  political  life  opened  before  him. 
In  1813  he  took  his  seat  in  Congress.  From  this  time  on  his  life 
is  writ  so  large  on  the  pages  of  his  country's  history  as  to  need 
little  further  notice  here.  The  greatest  service  he  rendered  his 
country  was  doubtless  as  champion  of  the  national  idea,  and  the 
speech  before  us  is  probably  his  most  memorable  utterance  upon 
that  subject.  Honors  and  fame  came  thick  upon  him  —  all  save 
the  honor  he  had  come  to  covet  most,  the  Presidency.  After 
thirty-nine  years  of  public  life  he  died  Oct.  24,  1852. 

SPEECH   IN   REPLY    TO   HAYNE. 

The  circumstances  which  called  forth  this  speech  may  be  thus 
summarized :  For  a  long  time  before  1830  there  had  been  a  grave 
divergence  of  conviction  among  American  statesmen  as  to  the 

359 


360  Notes. 

real  nature  of  the  union  between  the  various  States,  and  as  to  the 
limitations  thereby  imposed  upon  the  powers  of  the  separate 
States,  as  well  as  the  limitations  exercised  by  them  upon  the 
powers  of  the  general  government.  One  side  held  that  the  United 
States  was  one  nation ;  that  the  general  government  was  charged 
with  the  conduct  of  all  matters  which  concern  the  nation  as  a 
whole ;  that  laws  made  by  the  representatives  of  all  in  the  general 
government  are  binding  upon  all  alike ;  and  that  such  laws  may 
be  peacefully  set  aside  in  one  of  two  ways  only,  either  by  having 
them  declared  unconstitutional  by  the  Supreme  Court,  or  by  hav- 
ing them  repealed  by  the  power  which  made  them.  The  other 
side  held  the  several  States  to  be  sovereign  powers,  very  much  as 
if  they  were  separate  nations,  united,  it  is  true,  for  certain  com- 
mon purposes,  and  delegating  certain  limited  powers  to  a  common 
organization ;  but  reserving  each  to  itself  alone  the  decision  as  to 
whether  measures  enacted  by  the  general  government  should  be 
operative  within  its  territory.  This  was  the  doctrine  of  State- 
Rights  ;  and  its  application  in  nullifying  laws  passed  by  Congress 
was  at  this  time  much  talked  about,  and  was  soon  to  be  tried  by 
South  Carolina  with  this  very  Robert  Y.  Hayne  as  Governor. 
These  views  were  not  confined  to  separate  sections  of  country ; 
but  the  National  idea  found  its  strongest  support  in  New  Eng- 
land, while  the  State-Rights  idea — with  its  corollary,  nullification 
—  was  warmly  espoused  in  the  South. 

At  the  end  of  December,  1829,  Mr.  Foote  of  Connecticut  intro- 
duced into  the  Senate  the  innocent  resolution,  printed  on  page 
185  of  this  volume,  calling  for  an  inquiry  into  the  sales  and  sur- 
veys of  the  public  lands.  Nothing  special  was  elicited  by  the 
fitful  discussion  which  ensued  until,  on  January  19,  Mr.  Robert 
Y.  Hayne  of  South  Carolina  made  a  speech,  "  accusing  the  New 
England  States  of  a  selfish  design  to  retard  the  growth  of  the 
Western  States  —  a  design  originating  the  tariff ;  "  and  appealing 
to  a  natural  sympathy,  which,  as  he  affirmed,  existed  between  the 
Western  and  the  Southern  States,  and  which  should  unite  them 
against  the  policy  and  the  assumption  of  New  England.  Engaged 
as  Mr.  Webster  was  at  this  time  in  the  Supreme  Court,  he  had 
not  followed  the  discussion,  and  had  no  thought  of  taking  part 


Webster:  In  Reply  to  Hayne.  361 

in  it  at  all  until  by  chance  he  heard  this  speech  of  Mr.  Hayne. 
Its  tone  and  spirit  were  so  unusual  that  he  felt  it  must  be  an- 
swered. He  rose  to  speak  as  soon  as  Mr.  Hayne  sat  down,  but 
an  adjournment  of  the  Senate  postponed  his  reply.  Next  day  he 
delivered  his  first  speech  in  this  debate,  defending  New  England 
against  the  charges  brought  against  her,  and  upholding  the  doc- 
trine of  a  national  union  and  a  national  policy,  as  opposed  to  the 
divisive  tendencies  and  sectional  jealousies  to  which  appeal  had 
been  made.  The  discussion  took  on  at  once  a  range  and  an  im- 
portance far  transcending  the  scope  of  the  simple  resolution 
which  started  it.  The  champions  of  State-Rights  and  Nullifica- 
tion, together  with  those  who  insisted  that  slavery  should  be 
provided  for  in  the  settlement  of  new  territories,  rallied  to  the 
charge.  "  There  seemed  to  be,"  said  an  observer,  "  a  preconcerted 
action  on  the  part  of  Southern  members  to  break  down  the 
Northern  men,  and  to  destroy  their  influence  by  a  premeditated 
assault."  John  C.  Calhoun,  the  foremost  of  them  all,  was  presid- 
ing officer  of  the  Senate,  and  could  take  no  part  in  the  debate ; 
but  his  place  in  the  lists  was  made  good  by  Thomas  H.  Benton 
and  Robert  Y.  Hayne.  The  speech  of  the  latter,  in  particular,  by 
its  eloquence  and  acuteness,  as  well  as  by  the  relentlessness  of  its 
personal  attack,  produced  a  profound  impression.  By  many  per- 
sons it  was  felt  to  be  unanswerable.  At  its  close  the  Senate 
adjourned. 

This  second  speech  of  Mr.  Hayne  was  the  one  to  which  Mr. 
Webster  was  next  morning  to  reply.  The  previous  strokes  in 
this  battle-royal  had  roused  public  interest  to  the  highest  pitch. 
For  two  or  three  days  strangers  had  been  pouring  into  Washing- 
ton to  witness  the  outcome.  When  the  Senate  met,  all  the  usual 
restrictions  had  proved  of  no  avail  against  the  mighty  throng  that 
gathered  there.  "Its  chamber  —  galleries,  floor,  and  even  lobbies 
—  was  filled  to  its  utmost  capacity.  The  very  stairways  were  dark 
with  men  who  clung  to  one  another  like  bees  in  a  swarm."  The 
ordinary  ceremonial  of  opening  the  session  of  the  Senate  was 
impatiently  set  aside.  In  the  presence  of  this  vast  and  anxious 
audience,  without  the  least  sign  of  tremor  or  perturbation,  Mr. 
Webster  rose  and  began  his  second  speech  upon  the  resolution  of 
Mr.  Foote. 


362  Notes. 


TEXTUAL  NOTES. 

PAGE  186, 15.  elsewhere  —  in  the  Supreme  Court,  where  Mr. 
Webster  had  a  very  important  suit  pending. 

PAGE  188,  9.  The  friend  was  the  famous  Thomas  H.  Benton, 
who  had  twice  taken  an  important  part  in  the  debate.  His  first 
speech  —  referred  to  in  the  next  paragraph  —  Mr.  Webster  did 
not  hear. 

19  ff.  The  notes  used  by  Mr.  Webster  on  these  two  occasions 
have  been  preserved.  They  are  of  the  briefest  possible  nature, 
covering  in  the  one  case  only  three,  and  in  the  other  case  only 
five  loosely  written  letter-sheets.  But  the  great  questions  involved 
had  been  thought  out  by  him  many  months  before,  as  he  himself 
has  told  us. 

PAGE  192,  8.  the  Missouri  question,  referring  to  the  bitter 
strife  which  arose  over  the  admission  of  Missouri  as  a  slave-state. 
Cf .  any  good  History  of  the  United  States  s.v.  The  Missouri  Com- 
promise. The  same  question  in  its  later  aspects  is  discussed  by 
Mr.  Calhoun  in  his  speech  printed  in  this  volume. 

PAGE  194,  9.  In  determining  the  number  of  Representatives 
in  Congress  to  which  any  State  was  entitled,  the  number  of  free 
persons  in  it  was  increased  by  three-fifths  of  the  whole  number  of 
slaves  it  contained.  Thus,  in  proportion  to  the  number  of  voters, 
the  slave-states  had  a  much  larger  representation  than  the  free- 
states.  Cf.  the  Constitution,  Article  I.,  section  2. 

PAGE  202,  15,  16.  Because  the  terms  "neutral"  and  "belli- 
gerent "  are  applicable  only  to  a  state  of  war,  and  lose  all  their 
significance  in  peace. 

PAGE  204,  12.  Teucro  duce  —  "  with  Teucer  as  my  leader  "  — 
from  a  famous  line  in  Horace.  The  "  Teucer  "  thus  referred  to 
was  none  other  than  Calhoun  himself,  the  "  Mr.  President "  whom 
he  here  addresses,  now  the  leader  of  the  extreme  Southern  wing, 
presumably  even  in  its  opposition  to  the  national  policy  of  inter- 
nal improvements  which  Mr.  Webster  learned  from  him  in  1816. 
Few  things  in  the  speech  are  more  adroit  than  the  manner  in 
which  Mr.  Webster  here  parries  and  returns  with  a  home-thrust 
the  double  charge  of  personal  inconsistency  and  of  sectional  greed 


Webster :   In  Reply  to  Hayne.  363 

and  selfishness.  By  the  pleasantry  of  this  sally  upon  Mr.  Calhoun 
he  withdraws  the  attention  of  the  audience  from  his  immediate 
antagonist,  and  fixes  it  upon  the  real  leader  and  champion  of 
these  extreme  views.  With  unfailing  good  humor  he  piles  up 
opinions  and  votes  of  "  leading  and  distinguished  gentlemen  from 
South  Carolina  "  in  maintenance  of  the  very  policy  his  opponent 
has  condemned.  He  recalls  how  gladly  he  followed  the  star  of 
South  Carolina  —  until  it  changed  its  position.  The  Vice-Presi- 
dent  at  last  winces.  He  interrupts  the  speech  with  a  question 
(p.  209)  which  may  be  taken  either  as  an  indignant  denial  of  any 
change  in  his  views,  or  as  a  "  bluff."  Nothing  could  have  better 
served  Mr.  Webster's  purpose.  Having  "  drawn  "  Mr.  Calhoun, 
he  graciously  accepts  his  remark  in  the  former  sense,  and  then 
recalls  that  there  are  other  gentlemen,  too,  from  South  Carolina 
who  are  not  implacably  opposed  to  internal  improvements  at  the 
general  cost  —  if  only  they  are  to  be  carried  out  in  South 
Carolina. 

PAGE  205,  21.  causa  causans  —  the  causing  cause,  —  the  school- 
men's phrase  to  distinguish  the  essential  or  efficient  cause  from 
various  co-operating  or  conditioning  causes. 

PAGE  207,  4.  et  noscitur  a  sociis  —  "  and  he  is  [was]  recognized 
by  his  companions."  But  Mr.  Webster  seems  to  give  it  a  pun- 
ning turn  not  borne  out  by  the  Latin  —  «  and  he  was  known  by 
the  company  he  kept." 

PAGE  207,  13.  For  the  party  designations  of  those  days,  see 
note  to  page  298. 

PAGE  212,  21.  had  proved  a  legal  settlement  in  South 
Carolina  —  was  found  to  be  regularly  domiciled  there. 

PAGE  218,  11.  The  Hartford  Convention  of  1814,  a  conven- 
tion of  New  England  delegates  opposed  to  the  policy  of  the 
government,  and  especially  to  the  war  with  England.  It  sat 
with  closed  doors,  and  was  at  the  time  strongly  suspected  of 
treasonable  designs.  No  proof,  however,  of  this  charge  has  ever 
been  produced,  and  it  is  now  generally  discredited.  Cf.  U.  S. 
History. 

PAGE  220,  12-15.  The  peculiar  turn  of  expression  here  is  a 
reminiscence  of  the  closing  lines  of  Dryden's  Alexander's  Feast. 


364  Notes. 

The  student  who  has  his  English  classics  in  mind  cannot  fail  to 
notice  the  frequent  occurrence  of  such  echoes  in  this  speech,  and 
the  striking  originality  of  their  application. 

PAGE  221,  29.  With  this  eloquent  passage  Mr.  Webster  leaves 
the  personal  and  sectional  matters  that  had  been  forced  upon  him, 
for  what  was  much  more  congenial  to  his  nature  —  the  discussion 
of  principles.  All  through  this  defence,  in  fact,  has  been  apparent 
his  strong  feeling  that  personalities  have  no  claim  whatever  upon 
public  attention,  save  as  they  stand  for  ideas  and  principles.  Mr. 
Webster's  manly  dignity  and  his  unruffled  temper  in  repelling  a 
caustic  attack  have  made  this  section  a  classic  of  its  kind.  It 
may  be  profitably  compared  with  Burke 's  defence  of  himself  in  his 
Speech  at  Bristol. 

PAGE  223,  29.  The  citation  is  from  the  famous  resolutions  of 
the  Virginia  Legislature,  passed  December,  1798,  to  express  its 
opposition  to  the  Alien  and  Sedition  Laws  recently  enacted  by 
Congress.  The  language  was  understood  to  be  Mr.  Madison's. 

PAGE  227,  5,  6.  One  finds  here,  and  farther  on  (p.  239),  the 
first  drafts  of  Lincoln's  immortal  phrase  —  "  government  of  the 
people,  by  the  people,  and  for  the  people."  See  p.  312. 

PAGE  234,  21.  The  not  does  not  appear  in  any  edition  con- 
sulted, but  seems  imperatively  demanded  by  the  sense.  Its 
omission  was  doubtless  due  to  a  slip  of  the  printer  and  the  proof- 
reader. 

PAGE  246,  7.  John  Fries  was  a  turbulent  fellow  who,  in  1799, 
headed  some  Pennsylvanians  in  riotous  resistance  to  the  laws  of 
the  United  States  and  in  the  rescue  of  prisoners.  He  was  twice 
tried  for  treason,  twice  convicted  and  sentenced  to  be  hanged, 
but  was  finally  pardoned  by  the  President. 


"  At  the  conclusion  of  Mr.  Webster's  argument,  General  Hayne 
rose  to  reply.  Although  one  of  his  friends  proposed  an  adjourn- 
ment, he  declined  to  avail  himself  of  it,  and  addressed  the  Senate 
for  a  short  time  on  the  constitutional  question.  Mr.  Webster 
then  rose  again,  restated  both  sides  of  the  controversy  with  great 
force,  giving  General  Hayne  the  benefit  of  that  clear  setting  forth 


Webster:    In  Reply  to  Hayne.  365 

of  the  position  of  an  adversary,  which  none  could  do  better  than 
Mr.  Webster,  and  which  none  could  doubt  was  the  strongest 
method  of  stating  it ;  and  then  following  it,  step  by  step,  with  the 
appropriate  answer.  This  was  the  reduction  of  the  whole  con- 
troversy to  the  severest  forms  of  logic."  —  Life  of  Daniel  Webster, 
by  GEORGE  T.  CURTIS,  vol.  i.  p.  359. 

Two  years  passed,  and  again  Mr.  Webster  faced  this  same  ques- 
tion in  the  Senate,  but  this  time  with  an  antagonist  more  formid- 
able than  Mr.  Hayne.  Mr.  Calhoun's  speech  on  that  occasion 
has  been  considered  as  perhaps  the  ablest  effort  of  his  life.  It 
became  the  scripture  from  which  almost  a  whole  generation  of  the 
young  men  of  the  South  learned  those  lessons  which  afterward 
carried  them  into  the  War  of  Secession.  Mr.  Webster's  reply 
was  this  time  more  closely  reasoned,  more  compact  and  powerful 
as  an  intellectual  effort  than  the  earlier  speech,  though  less  inter- 
esting, it  may  be,  to  the  general  reader.  But  the  great  debate  of 
1830  seems  to  have  exhausted  the  arguments  upon  this  subject. 
Whatever  was  said  later  upon  either  side  seemed  to  be  but  re- 
statement or  re-arrangement  of  what  was  there  laid  down.  One 
thing  only  remained,  and  that  was  to  bring  the  opposing  views  to 
the  arbitrament  of  actual  conflict.  That  crisis  seemed  actually  to 
have  come,  even  while  this  second  debate  was  going  on.  South 
Carolina,  with  Mr.  Hayne  as  Governor,  undertook  to  put  her 
views  in  practice,  and  armed  herself  to  stop  the  collection  of 
United  States  duties  in  her  ports.  President  Jackson  sternly 
prepared  to  enforce  the  laws  with  all  the  powers  the  goverment 
could  wield.  But  the  storm  that  threatened  did  not  break  then 
after  all.  The  matter  was  compromised,  and  South  Carolina  took 
back  her  Act  of  Nullification.  The  final  issue  came  a  generation . 
later,  and  on  those  battle-fields  where  brave  men  freely  gave  their 
lives  "  that  government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  and  for  the 
people  should  not  perish  from  the  earth." 


I  ENGLISH. 

The  Academy  Series  of  English  Classics. 

THE  works  selected  for  this  series  are  such  as  have  gained  a 
conspicuous  and  enduring  place  in  literature  ;  nothing  is  ad- 
mitted either  trivial  in  character  or  ephemeral  in  interest.  Each 
volume  is  edited  by  a  teacher  of  reputation,  whose  name  is  a 
guaranty  of  sound  and  judicious  annotation.  It  is  the  aim  of  the 
Notes  to  furnish  assistance  only  where  it  is  absolutely  needed, 
and,  in  general,  to  permit  the  author  to  be  his  own  interpreter. 

All  the  essays  and  speeches  in  the  series  (excepting  Webster's 
Reply  to  Hayne)  are  printed  without  abridgment.  The  Plays 
of  Shakespeare  are  expurgated  only  where  necessary  for  school 
use. 

Addison.    De  Coverley  Papers.    Edited  by  Samuel  Thurber.    Boards,  25 

cents ;  cloth,  35  cents. 
Arnold.    Essays  in  Criticism.    Edited  by  Susan  S.  Sheridan.    Boards  only, 

20  cents. 
Rugby  Chapel.     Edited  by  Prof.  L.  D.  Syle.     (In  Four  English  Poem.'. 

Boards  only,  20  cents.) 

Sohrab  and  Rustum.    Edited  by  George  A.  Watrous.     (In   Three  Nar- 
rative Poems.    Cloth  only,  30  cents.) 
Burke.     Conciliation  with  the  Colonies.     Edited  by  Prof.  C.  B.  Bradley. 

Boards,  20  cents ;  cloth,  30  cents. 

Burns.     Selections.     Edited  by  Lois  G.  Hufford.    Cloth  only,  35  cents. 
Byron.     The  Prisoner  of  Chilian.    Edited  by  Prof.  L.  D.  Syle.     (In  Four 

English  Poems.     Boards  only,  20  cents.) 
Carlyle.     Essay  on  Burns  and  Essay  on  Boswell's  Johnson.     Edited  by 

Henry  W.  Boynton.    Boards  only,  each,  20  cents. 
Coleridge.     The  Ancient  Mariner.    Edited  by  George  A.  Watrous.     (In 

Three  Narrative  Poems.    Cloth  only,  30  cents.) 

Cowper.     John  Gilpin's  Ride.    Edited  by  Prof.  L.  D.  Syle.     (In  Four  Eng- 
lish Poems.    Boards  only,  20  cents.) 
George  Eliot.    Silas  Marner.    Edited  by  W.  Patterson  Atkinson.    Cloth 

only,  40  cents. 
Emerson.    Select  Essays  and  Poems.   Edited  by  Eva  March  Tappan.   Cloth 

only,  30  cents. 
Goldsmith.     The  Vicar  of  Wakefield.     Edited  by  R.  Adelaide  Witham, 

Cloth  only,  40  cents. 
The  Traveller  and  The  Deserted  Village.    Edited  by  George  A.  Watroui 

(In  Selected  Poems,    Cloth  only,  30  cents.) 


ENGLISH.  1 

The  Academy  Series  of  English  Classics. 

Continued. 

Gray.    Elegy  Written  in  a  Country  Churchyard  and  The  Progress  of  Poesy. 
Edited  by  George  A.  Watrous.     (In  Selected  Poems.    Cloth  only,  30 
cents.) 
Irving.    Selections  from  the  Sketch  Book.    Edited  by  Elmer  E.  Wentworth. 

Cloth  only,  35  cents. 
Lowell.     Selections.    The  Vision  of  Sir  Launfal  and  other  Poems.    Edited 

by  Dr.  F.  R.  Lane.    Cloth  only,  30  cents. 
Macaulay.    Essay  on 

Addison.  Clive.  Johnson. 

Chatham.  Hastings.         Milton. 

Edited  by  Samuel  Thurber.    Boards  only,  each,  20  cents. 
Essays  on  Milton  and  Addison.    Edited  by  Samuel  Thurber.    One  vol-. 

ume,  cloth  only,  35  cents. 
Milton.    Paradise  Lost,  Books  I.  and  71.    Edited  by  Henry  W.  Boynton. 

Boards,  20  cents ;  cloth,  30  cents. 

Minor  Poems.    Edited  by  Samuel  Thurber.    Cloth  only,  30  cents. 
Pope.     The  Rape  of  the  Lock.    Edited  by  Prof.  L.  D.  Syle.    (In  Four  Eng- 
lish Poems.    Boards  only,  20  cents.) 
An  Essay  on  Criticism.     Edited   by  George  A.  Watrous.     (In  Selected 

Poems.     Cloth  only,  30  cents.) 
Scott.      The  Lady  of  the  Lake.     Edited  by  G.  B.  Aiton.     Cloth  only,  40  cts. 

Marmion.    Edited  by  Mary  E.  Adams.    Cloth  only,  40  cents. 
Shakespeare.    Julius  Casar.  As  You  Like  It. 

Macbeth.  The  Tempest. 

Merchant  of  Venice. 

Edited  by  Samuel  Thurber.    Each,  boards,  20  cents;  cloth,  30  cents. 

Hamlet.     Edited  by  Samuel  Thurber.     Boards,  25  cents ;  cloth,  35  cents. 

Tennyson.     Enoch  Arden.     Edited  by  George  A.  Watrous.    (In  Three 

Narrative  Poems.     Cloth  only,  30  cents.) 

Idylls  of  the  King.     Edited  by  H.  W.  Boynton.     Cloth,  30  cents. 
Webster.     Reply  to  Hayne.     Edited  by  C.  B.  Bradley.     Boards,  20  cents. 

Syle.    Four  English  Poems  :    The  Rape  of  the  Lock,  John  Gilpin's  Ride, 

The  Prisoner  of  Chilian,  and  Rugby  Chapel.     Edited  by  Prof.  L.  D. 

Syle.    Boards  only,  20  cents. 
Watrous.    Three  Narrative  Poems :    The  Ancient  Mariner,  Sohrab  and 

Rustum,  and  Enoch  Arden.    Edited  by  G.  A.  Watrous.    Cloth,  30  cents. 
Watrous.    Selected  Poems  from  Pope,  Gray,  and  Goldsmith.     Edited  by 

George  A.  Watrous.     Cloth  only,  30  cents. 


12  ENGLISH. 

Orations  and  Arguments. 

Edited  by  Professor  C.  B.  BRADLEY,  University  of  California.    121110, 
cloth,  385  pages.    Price,  $1.00. 

The  following  speeches  are  contained  in  the  book :  — 
BURKE  :  WEBSTER  : 

On  Conciliation  with  the  Col-  The  Reply  to  Hayne. 

onies,  and    Speech   before  the        MACAULAY: 
Electors  at  Bristol.  Qn  the  Reform  Bm  Q{ 

CHATHAM  :  CALHOUN • 

On  American  Affairs.  '     On  the  Slavery  Question. 

ERSKINE:  SEWARD- 

In  the  Stockdale  Case.  On  ^  Irre      ^  Conflict. 

LINCOLN : 

The  Gettysburg  Address. 

IN  making  this  selection,  the  test  applied  to  each  speech  was 
that  it  should  be  in  itself  memorable,  attaining  its  distinc- 
tion through  the  essential  qualities  of  nobility  and  force'  of  ideas, 
and  that  it  should  be,  in  topic,  so  related  to  the  great  thoughts, 
memories,  or  problems  of  our  own  time  as  to  have  for  us  still  an 
inherent  and  vital  interest. 

The  speeches  thus  chosen  have  been  printed  from  the  best 
available  texts,  without  change,  save  that  the  spelling  has  been 
made  uniform  throughout,  and  that  three  of  the  speeches  — 
those  of  Webster,  Calhoun,  and  Seward  —  have  been  shortened 
somewhat  by  the  omission  of  matters  of  merely  temporal  or  local 
interest.  The  omitted  portions  have  been  summarized  for  the 
reader,  whenever  they  bear  upon  the  main  argument. 

The  Notes  aim  to  furnish  the  reader  with  whatever  help  is 
necessary  to  the  proper  appreciation  of  the  speeches ;  to  avoid 
bewildering  him  with  mere  subtleties  and  display  of  erudition ; 
and  to  encourage  in  him  habits  of  self-help  and  familiarity  witi? 
sources  of  information. 

A  special  feature  of  this  part  of  the  work  is  a  sketch  of  the 
English  Constitution  and  Government,  intended  as  a  general 
introduction  to  the  English  speeches. 

The  collection  includes  material  enough  to  permit  of  a  varied 
•election  for  the  use  of  successive  classes  in  the  schools. 


"Si 
ft 


Form  1 
f 


University  of  California 

SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 

405  Hilgard  Avenue,  Los  Angeles,  CA  90024-1388 

Return  this  material  to  the  library 

from  which  it  was  borrowed. 


/  &£. 


LOAN 


'7 


;&^^ 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


A     000040689     2 


A     PLEA^fl  DO   NOT    REMOVE 
THiS    BOOK  CARD-! 


University  Research  Library 


ro 

t~A 

CO 


o 
TO 


